Obasanjo’s wife loses bid to postpone son’s wedding

An Ikeja high court has dismissed the suit filed by Taiwo Obasanjo, wife of former President Olusegun Obasanjo, seeking the postponement of the wedding of her son Olujonwo to Tope Adebutu.

Lateefat Okunnu, the presiding judge, dismissed the suit on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear it because Olujonwo, 33, is an adult.

“On March 27, I ordered counsel to direct me on whether the family court can hear a case where the child is an adult,” he said.

“Counsel have addressed me and I have read the processes before me.

“I have found to be very genuine, what the applicant said regarding performing her parental duties in paragraph 15 of her affidavit.

“The court regrettably, lacks the competence to adjudicate this suit, the jurisdiction of the family court covers children under the age of 18 years.

“The respondent’s son is 33-years-old, this negates the ability of this court to entertain this suit.

“The proper order to give is one dismissing this suit in its entirety, I hereby dismiss this suit.”

Obasanjo and father of the bride, Kessington Adebutu, promoter of Premier Lotto known as ‘Baba Ijebu’ are the respondents to the suit.

The defendant, Obasanjo, was present in court while the respondents were absent.

In her suit filed on March 27, the wife of the former president, had requested that the wedding, which is scheduled for May 11, be moved to any date after June 1 which is Olujonwo’s 34th birthday.

She said she had received various warnings and prophecies from men of God that her son should not be involved in any elaborate celebration before his birthday.

During proceedings, Bode Olanipekun, counsel to Obasanjo and Adebutu, had asked the court to dismiss the suit due to lack of jurisdiction.

“We urge your Lordship to dismiss this suit based on jurisdictional challenges,” Olanipekun said.

“Under Section 261 of the Child’s Act, this court has no jurisdiction because the child is above 18-years.

“The claimants have not disclosed a reasonable cause of action and no laws were cited in their address.”