An Irrua High Court has granted a perpetual injunction restraining one Victor Irekenagba from Opoji, in Esan Central Local Government Area of Edo State from parading himself as the son of Eddy Ehiakhamen, from Egoro Na-Oka in Esan West Local Government Area of Edo State.
The court was presided over by the Honourable Justice U. I. Erameh also granted a perpetual injunction restraining one Madam Akhere, mother of Victor Irekenagba from Opoji in Esan Central Local Government Area of Edo State, from parading the said Victor Irekenagba as son of Mr. Eddy Ehiakhamen.
Honourable Justice Erameh gave the orders on Tuesday, 25 April,2023 while delivering judgement in Suit No. HCI/14/2021, brought by Eddy Ehiakhamen who in the suit prayed the court for, (i) a declaration that the claimant (Eddy Ehiakhamen) is not the biological father of the 2nd defendant (Victor Irekenagba); (ii) an order of perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd defendant from bearing the claimant’s name or otherwise parading or presenting himself as a child of the claimant, (iii) an order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant (Madam Akhere) from presenting the 2nd defendant as the son of the claimant.
In her well-considered judgement, Honorable Justice Erameh analysed the gravamen of the suit by the claimant denying paternity of one Victor Irekenagba.
According to Justice Erameh, “The claimant’s case in a nutshell is that he is a native of Egoro-Naoka, Esan West Local Government Area, Edo State. He lives with his family at Ekpoma and works for Ambrose Alli University, Ekpoma.
“He is married to Dr. (Mrs) Justina Ehiakhamen and their marriage is blessed with five living children – namely, Ehiane, Ehinomen, Ehiabhi, Christinana and Jonathan. He never married the 1st defendant or any other woman. The five children are his only children.
“The 2nd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is not his biological son and he has never acknowledged him as his son.
“He said in 1975 when the 1” defendant was pregnant, a family meeting was held to determine the paternity of the unborn child. He was invited to the said meeting and he denied being responsible for the 1st defendant’s pregnancy.
“After the birth of the 2nd defendant when he was accused again by members of the 1st defendant’s family of being the father of the 2nd defendant, he denied it.
“That one Mr. Edose claimed to be the father of the 2nd defendant and never relented in his effort to claim the child as his. The claim by Mr. Edose is known by members of the 1st defendant’s family.
“That he wrote a letter through his Solicitors to the 1st defendant on 22nd June, 2009 which was copied to the 2nd defendant and other members of their family disclaiming the paternity of the 2nd defendant.
“That he also wrote another letter through his Solicitors on 19th January, 2021 requesting for a DNA paternity test to be carried out and the defendants failed to comply. That he has tried to contact the 2nd defendant through social media, Facebook.
“That the 2nd Defendant has continued to parade himself as his son, bearing his name despite his protest. He finally urged the court to grant his reliefs”.
Justice Erameh who noted that both the first and second defendants (Madam Akhere and Victor Irekenagba) refused to enter appearance even when they were duly served the relevant court processes and hearing notices, cited legal authorities to affirm that it is not the business of the court to find out why they opted out of the proceedings.
“Despite being served with the court processes and hearing notices, the defendants failed and neglected to come to court to defend the case.
“At the close of the claimant’s case, learned counsel to the claimant, M. U. Ehonor Esq; on 27th February, 2023 adopted his written address.
“Learned counsel raised a lone issue for determination to wit:
“Whether the claimant has successfully established a case against the defendants that he is not the biological father of the 2nd defendant thereby warranting the court to making a declaration that the claimant is not the biological father of the 2nd defendant and consequently restrain the 2nd defendant from bearing the claimant’s name or otherwise parading or presenting himself as a child of the claimant.
The learned Judge ruled: “For it is my considered view that it is clearly not the business of this court to find out why they opted out of the proceedings. This view is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Obimiami Brick and Stone (Nig) Ltd v A.C.B. Ltd (1992) 9 LRCN 585 at p. 620 where it held as follows:
“No court has a right to force a party to give evidence. After both parties to dispute have been duly notified of the hearing date and a party for no justifiable reason decides to, so to say, opt out of the proceedings, the case presented by the other party once it is not discredited in any legal way should be the case to be considered on its merits. The intention of the other party why it refuses to take part is not the business of the court”.
“The claimant led unchallenged and uncontroverted evidence in this case which I believe. In an uncontroverted case, as in this instant case, where the evidence in support of the claim is not challenged, the court ought to accept same and act on it.
“Indeed, in such a case, the onus and standard of proof is minimal.
“From the foregoing, I accordingly hold that the claimant has by the unchallenged and uncontroverted evidence led, has been able to prove that he is not the biological father of the 2nd defendant”.
While making declarative orders in the case, Honorable Justice Erameh held:
“Having said so much, the claim of the claimant succeeds in part and the judgment of this court is as follows:(1) It is hereby declared that the claimant is not the biological father of the 2nd defendant. (2) An order of perpetual injunction is hereby granted restraining:(a) The 1st defendant from presenting the 2nd defendant as the son of the claimant. (b) The 2nd defendant from parading or presenting himself as a child of the claimant. There shall be no order as to cost”.
