By Rotimi Ojomoyela
Ado-Ekiti
A High Court sitting in Ado-Ekiti yesterday barred a Pastor, Victor Anene Ekejuiba, from his matrimonial home for battering his wife.
Ekejuiba’s wife, Engr. Caroline, had approached the court, seeking an interim order restraining her husband from accessing the matrimonial home to prevent her from further physical assault from her estranged husband.
She told the court claim the constant beating from his troublesome hubby, had damaged her physically and psychologically.
She also sought orders stopping the husband from disposing off the movable and immovable property belonging to her, including one four-bedroom flat at Zone 3, road 4, on Ayegunle Street, off Poly Road, Ado Ekiti, two-bedroom flat located at the same point, three generators, 5kv listers, among others.
In a suit number: HAD/633M/2016 filed before Justice Monisola Abodunde, she sought among others an interim order barring her husband from having access to her to prevent her from being killed through beating.
The claimant’s application was dated December 19, 2016, and was supported by 51-paragraph affidavit, while the respondent’s reply was dated January 25, 2017, the duo also contained some exhibits.
During trial, the Applicant’s counsel, Blessing Ajileye, presented veracious evidence to substantiate the claim that Ekejuiba was an unrepentant wife beater.
Ajileye presented a printed text message sent by the respondent to her beleaguered wife, which was not controverted by the respondent.
In her ruling, Justice Abodunde said: “The issue for determination here is not for the court to rule on the type of marriage between the parties but to rule on the rights of the applicant to be protected
from harm that could endanger her life due to matrimonial disputes/domestic violence before she takes steps if she so wishes under the matrimonial causes Act.
“My most persuaded view is that under the present circumstance, the applicant has succeeded in showing the court that her life is endangered by staying under the same roof with the respondent and that she needs to be protected from further harm without prejudice to the rights of the respondent.”