Ule Eza held in contempt of court by FCT high Court Bwari . ( SEE DOCUMENTS)

The domestic tussle between Mr. Edirin Oghenejode and Mrs Ule Faith lingers on even to another level as the Federal High Court sitting in Bwari, Abuja has dismissed the call by Mrs Ule Faith to stay execution that sought to prevent Mr. Edirin Oghenejode from knowing the school their son, Master Jaden Oghenejode, attends nor visiting him. The court, having dismissed the stay proceedings, considered contempt of court charges against Mrs. Faith for not obeying the ruling of the court.

In the contempt plea consideration, Mrs Ule Faith also risks contempt for not registering Mr Oghenejode’s name as the father of the child as provided for by the court’s ruling of January 2019.

According to the court’s ruling, the NDIC staff risks contempt of court charges for failure to comply with the ruling of the court despite having been served forms 48 and 49 which are notices of consequence for disobeying the court’s ruling.

Leading to the ruling, folowing claims and counter-claims by both parties, ruling by Justice O. A Musa overruled Mrs Faith’s application for stay of execution of judgment on the matter.

The court said the respondent did not satisfy the need for granting the stay of execution.

Also in the ruling, the judgement said granting the defendant’s application for stay of execution will deprive the warring parties’ child the right to proper education as well as deny him the love from his father who would, by such injunction, be denied access to his son.

According to the judgement, it said, “ If the judgement is stayed, the child of the parties, Jaden Edirin Oghenejode will be deprived access to spend time with the applicant (Father) who will not be allowed to know the school he attends or visit him or even pay his school fees. The child will be totally cut off from his father.”

“In the circumstance, I am of the view that this application is not meritorious and undeserving of the favourable exercise of discretion of this honourable court . I therefore dismiss the Respondent/Applicant’s motion number M/3002/19 dated 7th but filed on 8th February, 2019.”

The contempt consideration came in after the respondent claimed ignorance of the court’s decision on the case “even when her counsel had been representing her all along,” the applicant claimed.

The applicant said the respondent was served form 48 which shows she is aware of the court’s decision.

Therefore, feigning ignorance, the court considers the contempt charges against the respondent.

The ruling said, “I am convinced on the basis of this further affidavit of service by the bailiff of this honourable court that the respondent/applicant was indeed properly served personally in accordance with order 7 rule 12 of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (Civil Procedure) Rules 2018 despite the counter and further counter affidavit of the Respondent/Applicant…I disbelieve these counter affidavits of the Respondent/Applicant.”

The judge therefore ruled saying, “following from the above, I have no difficulty in granting the Applicant/Respondent leave to commence committal proceedings against the Respondent/Applicant as prayed in relief 1