EXCLUSIVE: After bitter divorce, Nigerian pastor, ex-wife battle over £1.5 million UK properties
When the marriage of the pastor and his wife was dissolved in 2017, it set off a storm of legal actions in the UK that involved the church.
ByAmeh Ejekwonyilo July 28, 2024 Reading Time: 6 mins read
Nigerian pastor Francis Irabor and his ex-wife, Auguste Irabor, are embroiled in a legal battle over their family assets in the United Kingdom following their bitter separation.
The extensive legal battle also involves the church Mr Irabor co-founded in Abuja, the Great Calling Ministries Worldwide, before the family’s relocation to the UK in 2014.
The church gave him loans to facilitate the relocation and to acquire two houses in the UK.
So, when the couple’s marriage was dissolved in 2017, it set off a storm of legal actions that involved the church.
At the heart of the battle were two houses in London, cumulatively worth £1.5 million, which Mr Irabor acquired with the loans he obtained from the church.
Court records obtained by PREMIUM TIMES reveal how the church’s spirited efforts to recover the loan it granted Mr Irabor clashed with Ms Irabor’s attempts to claim her share of the family assets.
In May 2023, a family court recorder (judge), AndrewWilletts, ordered Mr Irabor to pay her a lump sum of £750,000 and other costs she incurred on a clean break basis.
Mr Irabor did not appeal the judgement, but he supported the church to file an appeal against the verdict at the Family Division of the High Court, Royal Court of Justice in London.
The church hinged its appeal on a contention that the family court’s verdict left it with no guaranteed means of recovering its unpaid loan from Mr Irabor.
Join the Premium Times WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.
Open in WhatsApp
On 11 April this year, the judge, Jonathan Cohen, upheld the verdict of the family court’s recorder (a judge), awarding the lump sum of £750,000 and other costs in favour of Ms Irabor.
She was burdened by debts, including £50,000 in student loans and the upkeep of their four children in London at the time.
Despite Mr Irabor not being a direct appellant in the case, the High Court gave scathing remarks about him, casting him as a man living a highly comfortable life while “paying nothing towards the support of the (four) children or their mother”.
Audience Survey
Genesis of legal battle
The Irabors were married in 2008 and have four children aged 14, 13, 11 and 8.
In February 2013, Mr Irabor co-founded their church, the Great Calling Ministries Worldwide, in Abuja, Nigeria’s capital. He, his wife and his sister were the trustees of the church. But his wife has been removed, and Mr Irabor’s sister remains a trustee.
On 30 December 2013, barely 10 months after its founding, the church offered a substantial loan to Mr Irabor to relocate to England “and escape the threats of a militant organisation in Nigeria”.
One week later, the pastor entered into another loan agreement, allowing the church to lend him N550 million.
The church transferred $1.56 million, the dollar equivalent of the money, to Mr Irabor’s account in July 2014.
Mr Irabor used the money to purchase a five-bedroom family house at 6 Daisy Close in London in his sole name for £950,000.
Soon afterwards, the family relocated to the UK and claimed asylum.
According to the court, while Ms Irabor got asylum with permanent leave to remain in the UK, Mr Irabor’s precise status could not be ascertained.
Mr Irabor, again, decided to purchase another property, a flat in Goldhawk House in London. The purchase price was £365,000.
While trying to buy the house himself, he fell victim to fraud and needed another £220,000 to complete the purchase. He contacted the church, which promptly granted him another £220,000 loan.
Both properties were purchased in the sole name of Mr Irabor
Days after completing the purchase of the second house, Mr Irabor and his wife separated.
In November 2017, they were divorced in Nigeria.
Meanwhile, since June 2017, the first loan had become due for repayment – 42 months from its grant. There was no interest attached to the loan.
Church surfaces in London court
Shortly after the dissolution of the marriage of the Irabors, the church requested a restriction on the charges register of the house at Daisy Close.
This meant that the church sought an order to stop possible disposition through sale, transfer, gift or new mortgage of the registered property.
Less than a week later, the church also sued Mr Irabor in the Nigerian courts for the money he owed under the 2014 agreement.
The church and Mr Irabor reached a settlement “very quickly”, and judgment was entered in the Nigerian court for the sum lent.
Ms Irabor was not a party to the Nigerian proceedings and knew nothing of them.
In due course, the district court in London issued an interim charging order on the house at Daisy Close to make it serve as security for Mr Irabor’s debt.
The church also applied for a final charging order on the property.
Pastor’s ex-wife launches legal challenge
On 13 December 2018, Ms obtained leave from a district court to institute financial remedy proceedings under the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act (MFPA) 1984.
The law is a crucial piece of legislation in England and Wales that provides a legal framework for addressing financial settlements in international divorce cases.
Also, at the first appointment of the proceedings on 16 September 2019, the court gave the church leave to join the suit as an interested party (an intervenor).
In both decisions of the court permitting Ms Irabor to institute the action and allowing the church to join as an intervenor, the court made it clear that the central issue in the case was to determine whether the church had a beneficial interest in either of the two properties registered in the sole name of Mr Irabor.
While Ms Irabor sought £750,000 and her costs of the proceedings, Mr Irabor offered her the £372,000 proceeds of the sale of the Goldhawk house.
On its part, the church sought a final charge over the Daisy house.
Preliminary court judgement
After an extended trial process from 16 September 2019, the district court judge handed its judgement on 9 March 2022.
The judge held that the “legal and beneficial ownership of both properties (at Daisy Close and Goldhawk House) remained with” Mr Irabor, “not the church.”
Consequently, the court ruled that “the equity in each property would be available for distribution between” Mr Irabor and his estranged wife in their financial remedy proceedings.
The house at Daisy Close was valued at £1.176 million (being £1.2 million less sale costs), while the Goldhawk House flat was agreed to have a value of £380,000 gross, £372,000 net. The net value of the houses thus came down to about £1.548 million.
Mr Irabor’s total debt to the church through loans amounted to £1.274 million.
Church’s swift move
As soon as the court gave its judgement affirming that the equity in each of the two houses would be available for distribution between Mr Irabor and his former wife, the church swiftly applied to register the Nigerian judgment in the High Court.
The church took the step, realising from the district court judgment that it did not have the loan security which it had previously believed to be the case.
After this, the court granted the church an interim charging order to halt any move to dispose of the house at Daisy Close.
The church also applied for a final charging order.
The application for a final charging order was transferred to the family court at Plymouth to be considered alongside the financial remedy proceedings.
Family court judgement
The recorder (the judge) in charge of the family court hearing delivered his ruling on 25 May 2023.
The court awarded £750,000 lumpsum to Ms Irabor after considering her needs and liabilities, the total value of the two family houses, and the debt Mr Irabor owed the church.
The court found that, for her part, Ms Irabor had debts amounting to £110,000. Of this, £50,000 was legal fees, £59,000 in student loans and a small sum of council tax arrears.
Also, as of the time of the trial, Ms Irabor was living in “an unsatisfactory 3-bedroom council house in the South-West of London with all four children.
The court found that Ms Irabr was dependent on benefits. She was also completing a course of further education.
On the other hand, Mr Irabor was living in the former family home at Daisy Close, the court said. He was spending a significant amount of his time in Nigeria. He played a minimal part in the children’s lives and was not paying child or spousal maintenance.
The court rejected the church’s request to make the charging order on the Daisy Close property absolute to enable it to recover its debts from Mr Irabor.
The judge did not stop there. He went further to discharge the interim charging order placed, at the instance of the church, on the property.
Church appeals
Only the church appealed the judgement.
It lodged its appeal at the Family Division of the High Court, Royal Court of Justice in London.
The church expressed dissatisfaction with the family court’s judgement, contending that it failed to provide clarity about Ms Irabor’s housing needs.
The church also argued that the court over-calculated Ms Irabor’s debts.
Specifically, it contended that the court appeared to have calculated the lumpsum to enable Ms Irabor to repay her £50,000 student loan. Ms Irabor had a cumulative £110,000 debt at the time.
It argued that the court failed to explain why the student loan was not left as a liability since it would only be repayable when Mrs Irabor began to earn a good income.
In all these, the church contended that its loan to Mr Irabor, secured by an interim charging order, received minimal consideration by the recorder at the family court.
Judgement on appeal
In its judgement on the appeal delivered on 11 April this year, the High Court upheld substantially the family court’s decision. It only reduced the amount of certain costs, conceded by Ms Irabor’s legal team.
The judge, Jonathan Cohen, affirmed the £750,000 lumpsum the court awarded to Mrs Irabor.
On the family court’s assessment of Ms Irabor’s need, Mr Cohen held that the lower court was entitled to assess her need “generously”.
Mr Cohen said this was because Mr Irabor “had access to undisclosed funds.”
“He had the sole use of a 5-bedroomed house in London. He had managed to buy himself a new car for £45,000. He was paying nothing towards the support of the children or their mother.
“That she was on a very tight budget and substantially dependent on benefits were factors that fed into the recorder’s (judge’s) reasoning.”
He agreed that the recorder could have explained his calculations of Ms Irabor’s needs more clearly and could have arrived at a lower figure than £750,000.
READ ALSO: Article of Faith: Are you a child of the truth or the lie? (2), By Femi Aribisala
But, he said, the figure that the recorder as the trial judge arrived at was not significantly more than Mrs Irabor’s needs.
Mr Cohen also ruled that the church’s claim that the family court’s verdict left it with no means of recovering its loan was untrue.
The judge earlier agreed with the family court’s finding that the church was not keen on recovering the loan.
He wrote, “The effect of the order is that instead of the church receiving some £1.1 million from Daisy Close, it will receive £370,000 from the flat and the balance of £420,00 from the Daisy Close surplus. This goes a long way to repaying the church.”
Mr Cohen said it was always the case of the church and Mr Irabor that the loan would increasingly be covered as the properties appreciated in value.
“The effect of the judgment is simply that the church will have to wait longer than otherwise would have been the case,” Mr Cohen ruled.
Pointing out how Mr Irabor and the church had worked together to pursue the case from behind the scenes, the judge said, “Tellingly, he has not filed a notice of appeal from the recorder’s order, albeit he supported the appeal of the church.”
