Former Miss Nigeria, Helen Prest-Ajayi, and her daughter have appealed a Lagos High Court ruling that recognized Adenike Oluyemisi Ajayi as the sole widow of the late Dr. Tosin Ajayi.
The June 2026 judgment, which dismissed Prest’s spousal claim, established that Dr. Ajayi’s 35-year separation from Adenike did not dissolve their statutory marriage, and found that the alleged customary marriage to Prest was invalid due to a prior existing marriage.
The appeal, lodged at the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, seeks to overturn the entire judgment delivered by Justice O.A. Odusanya in Suit No. ID/3364LM/2021 between Mrs. Adenike Oluyemisi Ajayi and five others, and Ms. Helen Davies and another.
In the notice of appeal, Helen Prest Ajayi, who stated that she was wrongly sued as Helen Davies, and her daughter raised five grounds of appeal challenging key findings made by the trial court.
The appellants contended that the trial court erred in finding that Helen Prest Ajayi was merely a mistress of the deceased despite what they described as an existing consent judgment delivered by a court of coordinate jurisdiction in 2021, which recognised her and the first respondent as co-wives of the late medical practitioner.
They argued that the earlier judgment was pleaded and tendered in evidence but was not given due consideration.
They further challenged the court’s finding that Tomisin Ajayi was born out of wedlock, maintaining that evidence before the court established that she was a legitimate child of the deceased.
According to the appeal, documentary evidence, including a birth certificate and oral testimony, supported her claim, while the first respondent allegedly acknowledged her status as a child of the deceased during proceedings.
The appellants also faulted the court’s determination regarding the marital status of the parties, arguing that the principal issue before the court was whether the first respondent was entitled to administer the estate of the deceased and not the characterisation of Helen Prest Ajayi’s relationship with him.
In another ground of appeal, they contended that the trial court granted reliefs that were neither sought by the claimants nor supported by evidence, including pronouncements describing Helen Prest Ajayi as a mistress and undocumented partner of the deceased.
The appellants further argued that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction when it pronounced on the ratio and quantum to be adopted in distributing the estate of the late Dr. Ajayi among beneficiaries, maintaining that the matter before the court was limited to determining who was entitled to apply for letters of administration.
Meanwhile, the appellants have also filed a motion seeking a stay of execution of the judgment pending the determination of the appeal. In the application, they argued that the judgment contains executory orders that the respondents have begun taking steps to enforce.
They told the court that the estate comprises substantial real and corporate assets, some of which are already the subject of separate litigation and preservative orders before the Federal High Court and appeals pending before higher courts.
They further contended that allowing execution of the judgment could prejudice pending proceedings and render the appeal nugatory if eventually successful.
The appellants therefore urged the court to preserve the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
