Another instance of an individual seeking to reap where they did not sow,

And as for Mr Prest, he should have got a pre-nup or at the very least, a post-nup

This is a Nigerian man, that hustled to get to where he's!, mark that word, hin hustle man,

This is not some football player, who dropped 3 mansions and $75M, this na 9ja man, he worked hard for his money, he keeps his money. If she's got the brains like some people suggest here, let her stop being an adviser and go get her own!,

At this moment, I love being Nigerian!

Some women are damn wicked.

divine2043:

Way to go. Most ladies are money grabbers. Trying to reap where they did not sow.

very true, but i dont think its the case here, this woman has given 15 years of her life and 4 kids, she should be compensated

Prest’s case is also helped by the fact that his younger brother went to a Nigerian High Court in 2009 and obtained a declaration which states that Petrodel Resources is a part of their late father’s estate. Michael Prest also previously acquired a court order from a Nigerian court which forbids him from sharing information about Petrodel and its assets with third parties. Hence, it is difficult to ascertain the true market value of Petrodel resources.

^^^^^
This guy is 100% Nigerian-a very bad sharp guy.The woman must have learnt by now that it is not easy to hustle a hustler.

agiboma:

very true, but i dont think its the case here, this woman has given 15 years of her life and 4 kids, she should be compensated

Is that what marriage is all about now.COMPENSATION.Where are yu even from,i didnt wanna tel yu anyhtin before buh ya own don too much sef.

So the man did not gv anythin in the whole 15 years.I guess the woman was eating grass,designing her clothes with leaves and was responsible for the children's upkeep and their house rent etc.

She did him a big favour by marrying him innit.I always thot marriage was mutual,now a guy has to pay compensation for injuries in marriage.

sorry you don't labour all your life probably working long nights and maybe eating boxes of indomie noodles (because you don't have any money to buy meat) to have some goldigger relieve you of your hard work simply because she had children for you? That's not the way it works. These women give the rest of us a bad name.

The man has already offered her a settlement which is quite adequate and I'm sure he would also pay her child support for the maintenance of their children. What else does she want? He probably also gave her clothes, jewellery, cars as gifts throughout the marriage, she should take those and sell or better still get a job like everyone else. She doesn't have the divine right to be kept in the lifestyle because it's not hers to give. She was only able to enjoy those luxuries because her husband did well in business. Would she be making these outlandish demands if he was a pauper? No.

Anyway this is where she completely miscalculated. As a previous poster said, with a Nigerian man, you don't hustle a hustler. She don't jam rock be that!

@divine lol- tbh with you I believe what we see nowadays is a result of manipulating the law. These laws we're established because women were left with nothing to live on after being in long term marriages with men who end up abandoning them.

it's only fair after all, if the woman has spent 10 years of her life making a home she should benefit from it, if she had spent it working and living out of her own pockets it's different. After all lets not deny many rich men prefer that the women do not work and stay at home. So whats to become of her when the marriage is over? especially if she has children? The children are not meant to suffer as a result of the marriage and this is what often leads to very big pay outs.

Obviously giving the ever evolving system of marriage, the fast track mode of divorce but the very old fashion legal system, we have the women (and men) taking advantage, since the law is very much there and very old, men are meant to counteract it by using their common sense and either avoid marrying all together, keeping thier balls in their pants or marry a woman with as much to lose or benefit from the marriage so nobody ends up crying. Unfortunately the male ego isn't tied to his common sense and we still have the odd man paying heavy alimony to women who are far from deserving all because of some temporary rush of insanity he probably equated to love.
Whose fault is that?

I support my Nigerian brother in this battle jare. Those laws need to be re-evaluated IMO. He should pay her more than 2 million though, that is such a stingy amount. The only time I would support these large payments is if a man ditched his wife for another woman (if she was faithful) or if he was an abusive husband, in that case it is a nice way to exact REVENGE!  

queensmith:

@divine lol- tbh with you I believe what we see nowadays is a result of manipulating the law. These laws we're established because women were left with nothing to live on after being in long term marriages with men who end up abandoning them.

it's only fair after all, if the woman has spent 10 years of her life making a home she should benefit from it, if she had spent it working and living out of her own pockets it's different. After all lets not deny many rich men prefer that the women do not work and stay at home. So whats to become of her when the marriage is over? especially if she has children? The children are not meant to suffer as a result of the marriage and this is what often leads to very big pay outs.

Obviously giving the ever evolving system of marriage, the fast track mode of divorce but the very old fashion legal system, we have the women (and men) taking advantage, since the law is very much there and very old, men are meant to counteract it by using their common sense and either avoid marrying all together, keeping thier balls in their pants or marry a woman with as much to lose or benefit from the marriage so nobody ends up crying. Unfortunately the male ego isn't tied to his common sense and we still have the odd man paying heavy alimony to women who are far from deserving all because of some temporary rush of insanity he probably equated to love.
Whose fault is that?

Quoted for truth!

i dont support him ooo- the man is a criminal, lol. I will be PISSED if a man tried this with me. CAn you imagine being entitled to something and he goes to the depths of god knows which jungle to pull out some old law that says he cannot share?

i will KILL him!!!

sha sha-i dont know the length of time they were married but if it's long enough he should pay up and move on.

20 million is no comparison to 35, 000 how is she gonna keep up the lifestyle? what of the kids? no oooo he better release the money fast1 :p

is the payout not too much? And the lady must be a gold digger.

Greedy woman.

agiboma:

very true, but i dont think its the case here, this woman has given 15 years of her life and 4 kids, she should be compensated

Why should she be compensated for living her life?

phraoh:

Is that what marriage is all about now.COMPENSATION.Where are yu even from,i didnt wanna tel yu anyhtin before buh ya own don too much sef.

So the man did not gv anythin in the whole 15 years.I guess the woman was eating grass,designing her clothes with leaves and was responsible for the children's upkeep and their house rent etc.

She did him a big favour by marrying him innit.I always thot marriage was mutual,now a guy has to pay compensation for injuries in marriage.

divine2043:

Agiboma, cheers, let me politely say a few things

I think many ladies have a very twisted mentality when it comes to marriage. You see, when you say 'compensation', I do not get it. Is she a LovePeddler? Is she a contract staff or a gold digger? Marriage comes in different shapes and flavours. Some have a 50-50 arrangement, some 30-70, etc. Some other ladies get married to a man just because he is very wealthy .  In the latter case, as far as I am concerned, they have enjoyed the dividends of getting married to a rich man, by living in affluence and enjoying what they would never have dreamed of.

No sane man would/should neglect his kids and the mother of his kids but at the same time, no man who has laboured for his money deserves to be milked my money grabbers. The lady in this case is a money grabber unless you can show me how she contributed to his wealth. Why did she marry him?

Ladies should stop seeing themselves as trophies and should work hard to make ends meet. All these talk of payments are for money grabbers, simple.

praetor:

sorry you don't labour all your life probably working long nights and maybe eating boxes of indomie noodles (because you don't have any money to buy meat) to have some goldigger relieve you of your hard work simply because she had children for you? That's not the way it works. These women give the rest of us a bad name.

The man has already offered her a settlement which is quite adequate and I'm sure he would also pay her child support for the maintenance of their children. What else does she want? He probably also gave her clothes, jewellery, cars as gifts throughout the marriage, she should take those and sell or better still get a job like everyone else. She doesn't have the divine right to be kept in the lifestyle because it's not hers to give. She was only able to enjoy those luxuries because her husband did well in business. Would she be making these outlandish demands if he was a pauper? No.

Anyway this is where she completely miscalculated. As a previous poster said, with a Nigerian man, you don't hustle a hustler. She don't jam rock be that!

So brilliantly put by you people.

Thank God we don't have only fucktards like moremi on the thread.

this man better come home for original afose ijebu to speak some senses into this woman's head, haba!! sho fe pa ni( does she want to kill him)

me tinks marriage is a good business afterall

queensmith:

i dont support him ooo- the man is a criminal, lol. I will be PISSED if a man tried this with me. CAn you imagine being entitled to something and he goes to the depths of god knows which jungle to pull out some old law that says he cannot share?

i will KILL him!!!

sha sha-i dont know the length of time they were married but if it's long enough he should pay up and move on.

20 million is no comparison to 35, 000 how is she gonna keep up the lifestyle? what of the kids? no oooo he better release the money fast1 :p

Lol!! He’s a real criminal sha. Trying to pull a fast one on the oyinbo man!

I agree with you sha that what he’s offering her is too small to maintain any semblance of the lifestyle she is used to for all those years. He’s obviously out to spite her. If he had made her a better offer there may not be all this drama right now.

ileobatojo:

Lol!! He’s a real criminal sha. Trying to pull a fast one on the oyinbo man!

I agree with you sha that what he’s offering her is too small to maintain any semblance of the lifestyle she is used to for all those years. He’s obviously out to spite her. If he had made her a better offer there may not be all this drama right now.

lol- theyre probably out to spite each other, the fact remains that the law is there to maintain their lifestyles as best as possible. So nobody suffers. How will the children be happy if mommy is now on 25% of what they used to have? what they will have after the divorce will be a shoebox compared to before. how is that fair. lol.

i dont see how the man can prefer his family to have his toils in place of his ex wife- regardless of how things are now he once loved her, see how people change sha. its a shame. dunno why most bother to get married.

queensmith:

lol- theyre probably out to spite each other, the fact remains that the law is there to maintain their lifestyles as best as possible. So nobody suffers. How will the children be happy if mommy is now on 25% of what they used to have? what they will have after the divorce will be a shoebox compared to before. how is that fair. lol.

i dont see how the man can prefer his family to have his toils in place of his ex wife- regardless of how things are now he once loved her, see how people change sha. its a shame. dunno why most bother to get married.

Why should he maintain her lifestyle when they choose to stop being together?

How is that his responsibility in life?

Lets approve of the stewpid argument. If the children cannot be happy to be in a house worth 1m or whatever, why not in the best interest of the children, pass them to the parent that can provide them with such?

Do children suffer by living a normal life?

^^ because children are not meant to suffer from divorce.

If one has devoted years into a marriage there is not reason she should suffer all of a sudden when it ceases to work. A marriage is a lifetime contract regardless of how long it lasts.

and the children will be placed in a home in which they are better off, if the man hasn't been around to look after them since they were born a court cannot trust he's capable- the woman will get the kids, the cash to look after the kids, and the cash to look after herself after having spent god knows how many years lookign after the marriage.

its not as simple as you will like to think Saga, there is an absolute need for these laws to secure women (and atimes men) in case of a failed marriage.

queensmith:

^^ because children are not meant to suffer from divorce.

How is it suffering to live in a $1m house and go to top schools?

Are children the only party in a divorce? So men or breadwinners are meant to suffer from divorce?

queensmith:

If one has devoted years into a marriage there is not reason she should suffer all of a sudden when it ceases to work. A marriage is a lifetime contract regardless of how long it lasts.

Try and go understand the term contract. If it was a lifetime contract there would be no divorce allowed. Marriage is not a contract.

So if one has devoted years into marriage there is a reason they should be punished for it by allowing others to leech on their sweat?

queensmith:

and the children will be placed in a home in which they are better off, if the man hasn't been around to look after them since they were born a court cannot trust he's capable- the woman will get the kids, the cash to look after the kids, and the cash to look after herself after having spent god knows how many years lookign after the marriage.

If the argument is "in the best interest of the children" and it is adjudge money is in their best interest, then put them where the money is.

Under the same ridiculous argument of "in the best interest of the children", I don't see western courts enforcing the right of kids to see their fathers. Or is it not in the best interest of the child to be in contact with their father?

The argument is a RUSE! A subterfuge!

queensmith:

its not as simple as you will like to think Saga, there is an absolute need for these laws to secure women (and atimes men) in case of a failed marriage.

No. The laws are utterly senseless.

People should learn and grow up to know they are responsible for their own upkeep. They are entitled to what they work for. They are entitled to a lifestyle they can afford themselves.

If is cretinous to bare such responsibility under a law on someone else. You married someone does not make them responsible for you. RUBBISH!

What she is entitled to is what she worked for, any realistic opportunity cost they both agreed on plus anything he wants to give her.

It is pure illogical lunacy for a COURT to work under the presumption she contributed half. They will not even do such in determining the rewards of a business contract, it would be termed injustice. They will determine contribution and put a value on it for each party based on relative rewards. So why only in marriage such idiocy as presumption of 50/50?

Mr Prest should pay up since he has d money, afterall he would spend far more on mistresses.

aglomar:

Mr Prest should pay up since he has d money, afterall he would spend far more on mistresses.

You are a cretin!

If he chooses to spend his money on mistresses that is HIS business. Don't tell people how to spend their OWN money.

If he wants to get a truck and pile his money in and pour it in River Thames, that is his business. The only people that can have a chat with him are the Ministry of Environment executives.

^^ its about relative wealth dimwit. if you've been living in in a 20million house all your childhood it will be suffering to downgrade to a 1million one.
doesnt mean children do not survive in 20 000 houses.

and children are the most important party in any divorce- thats the reason some men end up paying out more than half their earnings.

ok your second paragraph made no sense.

no you cant simply put children where money is God saga are you just arguing for the sake of it??

lets turn around a question you asked on another thread- in western countries who is more likely to be fully taking care of the kids?

well the laws have been there before you were born and created by MEN much smarter than you. you can call it senseless till tomorrow they are still there. With majority of men running the judiciary system they still haven't changed.

Im not even going to try and defend a woman's contribution to a home or a marriage, but if you'd had to pay for it you'd be paying much more than half your life's earnings. think about that!

queensmith:

^^ its about relative wealth dimwit. if you've been living in in a 20million house all your childhood it will be suffering to downgrade to a 1million one.
doesnt mean children do not survive in 20 000 houses.

and children are the most important party in any divorce- thats the reason some men end up paying out more than half their earnings.

ok your second paragraph made no sense.

no you cant simply put children where money is God saga are you just arguing for the sake of it??

lets turn around a question you asked on another thread- in western countries who is more likely to be fully taking care of the kids?

well the laws have been there before you were born and created by MEN much smarter than you. you can call it senseless till tomorrow they are still there. With majority of men running the judiciary system they still haven't changed.

Im not even going to try and defend a woman's contribution to a home or a marriage, but if you'd had to pay for it you'd be paying much more than half your life's earnings. think about that!

You are a cretin!

If the 20m house is that important to raising the kids, then put them with the parent that can provide them with it, not milk the parent.

Everybody in a divorce should be important as long as a minimum threshold is not exceeded. You don't create a system you know will mostly likely result in disadvantage for only one party every time, all in the name of best interest.

What makes you think a rich man cannot take care of their kids? If the wife dies will social services come and take the kids? If it is adjudged the money is that important, then in the best interest of the children, put them with the one with money.

You are a cretin to think you can point out men or assume some men are more intelligent than me because of their position or responsibilities. Their combined intellect is not as intelligent as the enzymes in my spit. My intellect is God-like. That is why I pick holes in their daft laws. They created injustice!

queensmith:

^^ its about relative wealth dimwit. if you've been living in in a 20million house all your childhood it will be suffering to downgrade to a 1million one.
doesnt mean children do not survive in 20 000 houses.

and children are the most important party in any divorce- thats the reason some men end up paying out more than half their earnings.

ok your second paragraph made no sense.

no you cant simply put children where money is God saga are you just arguing for the sake of it??

lets turn around a question you asked on another thread- in western countries who is more likely to be fully taking care of the kids?

well the laws have been there before you were born and created by MEN much smarter than you. you can call it senseless till tomorrow they are still there. With majority of men running the judiciary system they still haven't changed.

Im not even going to try and defend a woman's contribution to a home or a marriage, but if you'd had to pay for it you'd be paying much more than half your life's earnings. think about that!

I think you are getting it all wrong. If children are the most important, then it's not about money. It's about love and care. And simply sharing btw both partners. The kids are not doll babies. They are Nigerians, and must understand that life is what it's. Change is the only constant thing. What if the parents died!

Do you know how many meetings the man ditched just to be with his family?,  Do you know how much money he's spent all these years especially on his wife!,  Lets stop this stupidity that because it's the system, it's right. We only oblige because we want orderliness. My friend, most women of the rich work, they enjoyed the fame and fortune together, and now that it's gone, let her live with it,  else, let her build her own empire.

I have worked very hard for my money. Any woman who wants to work hard, should do same. let her work extra hard. I will continue to give her free consultancy advise, free cash flow, free everything, free of rent, all support. I will share my wealth with you because I am fond of you. But the moment we are through with the relationship, we move on. I don't expect you to share your wealth with me either. Stop being a damn liability!

damola1:

I think you are getting it all wrong. If children are the most important, then it's not about money. It's about love and care. And simply sharing btw both partners. The kids are not doll babies. They are Nigerians, and must understand that life is what it's. Change is the only constant thing. What if the parents died!

Don't mind the person! What is more important to a child, affluence or having a father?

Yet the same system is created to guarantee the children the former but is utterly toothless if the ex-wife denies the kids the latter.

In the best interest my arse! Senseless laws created by cretins!

damola1:

Do you know how many meetings the man ditched just to be with his family?,  Do you know how much money he's spent all these years especially on his wife!,  Lets stop this stupidity that because it's the system, it's right. We only oblige because we want orderliness. My friend, most women of the rich work, they enjoyed the fame and fortune together, and now that it's gone, let her live with it,  else, let her build her own empire.

I have worked very hard for my money. Any woman who wants to work hard, should do same. let her work extra hard. I will continue to give her free consultancy advise, free cash flow, free everything, free of rent,  all support. I will share my wealth with you because I am fond of you. But the moment we are through with the relationship, we move on. I don't expect you to share your wealth with me either. Stop being a damn liability!

Brilliantly put!

@damola
erm so what is used to raise and care for children? dust and sand?  what is love and care without - money shelter clothing and education? and what does being Nigerian have to do with anything? they don't live in Nigeria?

if the parents died then the parents are dead- in this case the parents are still alive- they need to minimise the pressure on the children after the divorce.

im sure the man hasn't ditched any meetings to be with his family lol! lets not make meaningless assumptions here- like i said before- if a man was pay for what women have historically contributed towards marriage he will be paying more than a lifetime of earnings. If one was to put a value on getting pregnant and having children alone most won't be able to afford it,

lets not even forget, this man can afford it, the 20million isnt comparable to the man paying half his salary in alimony and child support, and even losing his house.