Ex-Hubby, Churchill, Tonto Dikeh Fight Dirty In Court
AISHA ABUBAKAR
The fight between Nollywood actress, Tonto Dike and her ex-husband, Olakunle Churchill, has become messy despite the fact that the relationship had produced a child.
P.M.EXPRESS reports that the war, which was fought in the media, has now moved to the Court following the recent action by Churchill.
A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja Judicial Division, has invited popular Nollywood celebrity, Tonto Dikeh, to appear in Court over a suit filed by her former husband, Dr. Olakunle Oladunni Churchill and his organization, Big Church Foundation, a subsidiary of Big Church Groups.
The case against Tonto in the High Court with Suit
No CU/5801/19, issued 14 days notification with strict implications on her
failure to appear before the Court, as the Court may proceed therein with judgement
even in the absence of the Defendant (Tonto Dikeh).
According to the case filed by the 1st and 2nd Claimant (Dr. Churchill and Big
Church Foundation respectively), former husband of the defendant, it maintained
claims that the series of malicious and fallacious allegations, assertions and
accusations through media campaigns and publications by Tonto Dikeh and her
charity organization were defamatory, baseless and sponsored to tarnish and
damage the image and political ambition of the claimant, as he might have told
her his intentions to run for Federal House of Representatives in his
constituency.
The suit identified several declarations with substantial proofs ascertaining illegalities
in the action and approaches adopted by the claimant’s ex-wife. The claims includes
the declaration that the defendant’s interview on series of false allegations
on domestic violence, infidelity, false allegations of fraud, sexual disease,
money ritual, homosexuality/bisexuality, and mockery of the 7,000 persons
empowerment project by Big Church Foundation, describing the humanitarian
intervention as fake.
According to the suit, Tonto Dikeh’s interviews were aired, published and
sponsored via broadcast channels, online media platforms, YouTube handles,
notable print publications and even on her large 4million followers page on
Instagram, with a view to impugn the character, standings in life and goodwill
of her ex-husband, Olakunle Churchill. The claim also requires the sum of
500million Naira as general damages from Tonto Dikeh (the defendant), for the
libelous, slanderous and false allegations published against the claimants.
In one of her defamatory assertions Tonto noted the father of her ex-husband
was a gardener, but sources have revealed that her claim was just mere
fabrication as the father of her ex-husband was instead a high leveled
personality, recognized and engaged with several international leaders, with
gainful impacts in areas of humanitarian impacts and diplomatic connections.
The defendant’s action in appearance would be to propose and provide reliable
evidence to sustain the accusations, insults, defamation, slander and
allegations supported, published and promoted on several mass media networks
and platforms, including television, YouTube channels, social media handles and
the online media channels.
Tonto Dikeh has also been compelled by the suit filed against her to publish or
cause to be published an apology to her ex-husband, and a retraction of the
publications on her Instagram pages, YouTube Channel, 3 major Nigerian newspapers
and their online sites, as well as a file affidavit of compliance of same
within 14 days of the delivery of judgement. Also an order of perpetual
injunction may also be issued restraining the defendant, privies, agents etc
from publishing or cause to be published any further defamatory words against
the claimant. She would also have to refrain from any form of blackmail or
extortion of her ex-husband in the name of upkeep and education for their son.
However, she has continued to refuse the father access to the child, even when
the Court had earlier granted him access to his son.
The claim also demanded a sum of 10million Naira as cost of the action of
defendant.