₦airaland Forum

Fifthcolumnist:
If your story is complete and true then your wife is entirely to blame. Although, I think fuming at her to save face was unnecessary and poorly managed. You know women are proud beings and hate being attacked even when they are wrong.

But, you can't risk loosing your marriage for the sake of pride and "saving face". Infact, if your marriage breaks down after just one week together, you'll have no face at all how much more one to save. You have to loosen up, swallow your high standards, and play the fool for the sake of your marriage before things get out of hand. Apologise to her and her family telling them, the stress of the whole event got to you and you're sorry you managed the situation poorly. Do this in the interest of peace and forget about rightness or wrong. After all, it's your marriage to keep, not theirs' or anyone else's.

I will take the opposite view from the above comment.

Any relationship built on mistrust and deceit will eventually fall apart.

There is no point forcing it, I always tell people, no matter what you do, you can't shine sh1t.

Your Inlaw and most likely conniving with your wife, stole and misappropriated funds earmarked for your wedding. Your wife, instead of standing by your side, ran to be with her mom and you think this is going to change by making peace?

You should thank your stars, that you saw their real colors this early. Agreed, it is not good to raise one's child by a single parent, but it is better than raising them in a broken home.

It is what it is, swallowed your pride and call it what it is, it is a failed marriage, you are not alone, their are other 50% company out there, so you should not be ashamed of it.

Cut her loose and let her go.

Adaowerri111:
so make dem employ person wey nor be their member abi or person wey nor dey pay tithe, those wey dey pay how dem go come do them?

But don't you see the hypocrisy?

Why allow non members & non tithers to attend their schools, including Universities and also employe non members/non tithers lectures?

It is all an effort to get the best of both worlds and have nothing to do with God or religion or doctrine.

The truth is, it their business and they can make up the rules, however twisted they might be...but the hypocrisy is glaring.

izzou:


Shebi the guy wey jilt her go rest now

Emotional pain is almost equivalent to physical pain

And the lady sef.....Africans are tough people. Rest in Peace sha

Looking at it from another angle, her actions is truly not fair on the poor guy who jilted her.He has to leave with the guilt for the rest of his life.

Every individual single or married have to realize that, marriage should not be a 'do or die' affair, each person must be afforded the opportunity to opt out at anything, if they so wish without the other person doing something dramatic.

Not all relationships will lead to marriage, not all marriages will last the test of time, sadly not all females will get marry and ironically not all males who wished, will get marry...but life must continue regardless.

Temidayo9:
Not a lawyer , not a witness, whats his business there?
May be sympathiser

The last time I checked, the Nigerian court is still a public place and citizens can visit.

If you have the time, try to visit some court proceedings as an a citizen, you might learn a thing or two about how the process of justice works in this country. The TVs, movies and films filter a lot and in most cases distort what is been feed to the public, resulting in us having the wrong perceptions.

Little by little, the truth is coming out...from one of Stephanie Otobo statements, she stated that the Apostle wanted a male child with her, hence she got pregnant. She was very blunt and specific...I believe she also said in one of them that, the Apostle told her something along the lines of ...."the child will do great things"..I can't remember the exact verbiage, but am searching online to see if I can locate that.

Since the Apostle had been calling her a 'harlot', 'prostitute'....I had been asking myself..."why will this girl think that an Apostle will want to have a male child with a harlot?".

Never knew the Man of God himself will answer the question...I can see another male child aka King David loading, another male child born in iniquity and conceived in sin, whose mother according to the Apostle was a harlot in the Bible and a harlot here among us, what a fulfillment of Bible prophesy.

miketayo:
how about using it for power?

Bombs are meant to explode and can't be used for power, the same knockouts cannot be used to boil beans.

Emeskhalifa:
will the WW3 reach africa??

Yes, even WW2 reached Africa and West Africa contributed troops to it.

When war start, opposing countries do not just bomb each other's homeland, they also target their opposition's interests abroad.

North Africa will be drawn immediately into the fight due to their unique unique proximity to water ways connecting the East to the West of the warring parties.

Most African countries got independence from industrialized countries in the West and those industrialized countries still have huge interest and financial investments in these Africa countries, which will be soft targets to the opposing warring party.

That said, I don't believe anything about WW3 said above. Trump is too chicken hearted to start a war. If you remember, the US carrier rumored to have been sent to NK, was actually sailing in the opposite direction for more than a week, while the US White House was telling everyone that, it was sailing towards NK. The war ship only reversed direction after US media outer it and posted satallite images that showed it was sailing in the opposite direction.

The ship captain and Officers are among the best Military Officers on planet earth, and they know the coordinates of NK even in their sleep, my guess is, they were just following orders to sail in the opposite direction.

ifyalways:
Of course it's not. Once African men step out of the shores of Naija they rarely demand such things ; which Oyibo or akata girl want pound fufu? Well, only a handful.

But make same men marry Naija girl? He go demand freshly home made akara every morning, fresh soup and fufu for dinner and expect you to jump and hump on his pot belly at night.

pounding fufu is so old, there are more better, faster and easier way to prepare fufu.

I thought he is a moslim abi him don convert ni?

Unless there is more to the story, which is always the case....This was not a suicide attempt, but a public cry for help and to shine a light on this plight.

He realize he made a grave mistake and taken it too far, when he jumped into the river, hence the continual cry for help while he was in the river.

If military men are not safe in 9ja anymore, bloody civilians, should just forget.

Gone are the days, wey the mere presence of men in uniform especially Army & Mopol sends shockwaves across the underworld. Now, they are mere targets along with anyone on their pathway.

Celcius:
The utility bill is the most useless part of it.
I pray we get there, when with a NIN (National Identity Number) we can open an account.

Even in the use you cannot open an account or even get a Driver license without proof of address.

BVN, NIN, etc does not prove your address as info on those document become stile with the passage of time. It is therefore prudent for the bank to ask for some type of document that current and can proof that, you live at the address you stated that you live.

It is part of Know Your Customer policy handed down by CBN and the banks can't help it.

Upon all these school wahala to enter school to read medicine or law and another set of wahala to graduate.

Doctors and lawyers no go see work for 9ja. Doctors are collecting N60k/per month for private hospital right here in Lagos and lawyers are at the Ikeja under bridge looking for someone to write affirdavit for.

TPAND:
This is normal thing over here. Amazing to see how lazy and non challant workers are over there, they are waiting for the elevators to come on before going to their respective workstation.

Try that one here, even in UBA building marina and see if your assss will not be sent packing

You are comparing Apple with Oranges.

It occupational hazards for them to go inside that building, these are skyscrapers with no windows to let air in, so they rely on electricity 100% for ventilation, asking people to work like this is a code violation; if phones are not working, It means they can't call 911, another code violation; if anything happen up there, since elevators are not working, it will take emergency crew a longtime to response, which is a liability and another lawsuit against the employer; most of these workers use computers to do their jobs, if no light...their productivity is zero.

There are only negatives if you ask workers to go in and work in that condition and zero benefit. Those outside there may just be waiting to get in, take their belongings and head home for the day or to the park to chill out.

That babies come from the Anus.

LionDeLeo:
That this country is still surviving is just an act of God.

Shameless enemies of state who progressively moved from "it was stage managed" through "it belongs to Ameachi" to "they are hiding the owner" must pop up with their dry heads to explain how the DG of NIA is innocent.

The suspended SGF and DG will soon become "heros".

O boy na only act? Na might of God oh!

The way this guys were plunging the treasury Angels would even be jealous.

Splinz:


How did this miracle come about?

It's call silicon, you can buy any size, any shape you want and Doctor go hang am for chest, for you with niddle and thread ni.

diasporaman:
Useless prostitute. Come to Nigeria and file your charges. Apostle Johnson Suleman doesn't live in Canada neither does he have a permanent resident permit there

If a Canadian Resident suffers in Canada as a result of an injury or damage done to them abroad by a foreign National, who have zero connection with Canada...Canada will exercise jurisdiction over the case and the foreign Nationals in Canada.

This case is more than that; The Apostle have significant connections with Canada in that, he own a Resident there, plus some of the suffering alleged occurred in Canada.

Based on the first paragraph Canada can exercise jurisdiction over allegations that occurred in Nigeria and elsewhere and based on the second, they can exercise jurisdiction over allegations that occurred in Canada.

Therefore, though they only need one; but Canada have both personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the case and the Apostle in Canada...The only question is that of Inconvenient forum and the Inconvenient forum if raised by the defense and entertained by the court can cut both ways, as she have enough stake in testifying that, the Nigeria forum is inconveniencing to her and her ability to get justice in Nigeria. The Nigeria Police over-zealousness and inept inability to follow the law can further hurt the argument that Nigeria is a convenient forum for her...e.g. she was arrested by the Nigerian Police and detained for more than six (6) days and later released without a single criminal charge filed against her, which is against the Nigeria law, that all arrested individuals must be charged to court within 48 hours or must be released. Plus, she was arrested on the charges of terrorism, but the civil case that the Apostle later filed did not mention the initial terrorism accusation and the Nigerian government never pursue the terrorism charges...so you can see how an independent adjudicator can come to the conclusion that, her fundamental human rights were violated and that, the cards are stacked against her in Nigeria.

GogobiriLalas:
Actually we are saying the same thing, my point is that a summary judgment can easily be contested statute of limitations considered; all the party contesting the judgement has to show is any defense whatsoever including pleading that the initial pleading mis- stated the facts and then the case can be reopened....instead of seeking summary judgment, I think it's better for the plaintiffs here to seek a more proper forum to hear the case and to frame it in a way that it can't be vacated in case of defendant's no show

If he didn't, it will be a default judgement and not summary judgement.

Summary judgement is just a Pre trial mechanism either side can employ, if they think they have all their facts and evidence and does not want the length and cost of a long time drawn war.

You can't overcome a default judgement by arguing the merits of the original pleadings.

GogobiriLalas:
I haven't read the pleadings but from what I have gathered so far, if the Canadian court goes on to issue a summary judgment, all the Apostle has to do is state that the judgement ought to be vacated because plaintiffs has no evidence...she had no evidence in the Nigerian court so how can she successfully plead her case in a Canadian court...remember that Nigerian Courts have persuasive precedence in Canadian courts

The Nigeria case is different from the Canadian one, she is been sued for blackmail in Nigeria and whatever evidence she might have or might want present in the Canadain would hardly stand against a blackmailing charge.

If the Pastor pulls a no show in Canada, it will be a default Judgement and not summary judgement. You can not argue argue in merits or the lacks therefore of a plaintiff pleadings in trying to over turn a default judgement.

Valid arguments against a default Judgement is that you didn't receive the original summons or that you were indisposed e.g. in a war front and could not response or follow up to mount a good defense...even when you succeed in overcoming the default judgement, it will be returned to the trial court to then try the case.

GogobiriLalas:
If the initial pleading is biased in favor of the plaintiffs it can be vacated...

We must have different of what 'bias' means here...my interpretation is, they must be favorable to the pleader.

I can go to court and submit pleadings, the sum total of which are not in my favor. That defeats the whole essence of going to court in the first case, because if my pleadings are favorable to the other party, I do not have any injury for the court to redress.

If you look at it with the same lense, the Apostlr pleadings against her in Nigeria court are biased against her and that is how it suppose to be and she does not response to the Nigeria case, a default judgement will be rendered against her based on the whole pleadings.

GogobiriLalas:
very valid points...but how do you compell appearance, yes summary judgment as you earlier stated could be entered but all the defense has to do is state a defense and such a judgement would be vacated statute of limitations considered. What I'm saying is that without defendant's full participation any judgement in absentia could easily be contested for example the initial pleading by the plaintiffs could be contested as biased in favor of the plaintiffs, it is confusing, it fails to state a triable issue absent evidence, necessary parties were not joined etc. Can the defense not even move for a motion to dismiss? Let's even say the Court insists on hearing the suit, can the Apostle not counter sue for Human Rights violation? Let's suppose that the case goes on trial and defendant is found guilty, is there a reciprocal arrangement between Nigeria and Canada, can Apostle be extradited? A possibility will be to file suit at the ICJ or some other International forum for violation of international human trafficking laws...but that's another issue entirely, the way it stands all a Canadian court can do is offer an opinion suo ponte and that will be a waste of judicial time.

Had it been this is a criminal case, the Canada court might compel appearance and might use Interpol to achieve that, also in some criminal cases, when the defendant cannot be located all, courts have tried them in absential and convict them.

As the case is now, The Apostle have 40 days, to file an answer with the Canadian court. If he fail to do that, the plaintiff can fail for a summary judgement and further notice will be sent to Apostle to avail reasons, why he could not file a timely answer...Usually courts are liberal if they receive a response from him and the summary judgement on the pleadings will be denied and the Apostle will be allowed to file an answer. However, if he did not response to the motion for summary judgement, the Canadian Court will have no option but to render judgement in favor of the plaintiff. Even after rendering this judgement, the Apostle still have sometimes to appeal that judgement in order to revival it and then file his answers...in the US, it is usually two months....If after two months (in case of US); the summary judgment is final.

Without a defense participation, the only reason the defense can contest the judgement against them will not be on the merits of the case, they have to allege that, they were not served or were not properly served the notice by the plaintiff. The Plaintiff can counter that argument by providing verification that the motion was served on the plaintiff properly.

Initial pleadings of plaintiff are usually pleaded by the plaintiff and as such, they will be biased in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff can't go to court and make pleadings that will favor his or her opponent. This is the reason the defense have to response and counter all the plaintiff's pleadings by either 1. Ask for more time to response 2. Challenging Jurisdiction, 3. Motion for Inconvenient forum 4. Accept or deny or state that they do not have enough information to accept or deny each plaintiff's claims 5. Cross petition against her....If his lawyers want to buy time and make her spend until she ran out of case or will to go further, they can file each of those motions piecemeal and wait for the outcome of one before moving to the next.

No, the court will issue an enforceable order and not an opinion.

Sitting and mounting a defense is not a good strategy and it is bound to backfire big time.

GogobiriLalas:
I think this is more of a forum non convenien issue, the case was filed in a Canadian court, the burden of proof is on the defense to show that the forum is inconvenient,; take Wiwa v. Shell B.P for example, the key reason why N.Y exercised Jurisdiction in that case was because Shell was transnational it can't claim forum non convenien, it had reached out and availed itself of the forum in a purposeful systematic and continuous manner...The Apostle doesn't fall under this category, true he has a church in Canada but that falls under the charitable organizations. exception, besides he is the one being sued, not the Church, Otobo's lawyers could do well joining the Church in the defense...apart from this there's also the issue of witnesses availability and accessibility to evidence...it is hard to see how a plea for inconvenience would not be sustained....I don't know how persuasive American precedence is to Canadian courts but under American law the court will have to transfer...

That is true, they will have a case if the defense file an inconvenience forum motion. Especially, when some of the claims e.g. the one about giving her concoction to drink, poisoning, malicious prosecution, etc occurred in Nigeria. The only witness might be her parents in the case of the marriage claims, I doubt if there is any evidence in Nigeria that can be easily accessed by a Canadian court.

But if you look at the way her lawyer framed the claims...they came with the anger that, she was a minor in Canada, when the sexual assaults began, including harassment....The truth is, no court in Canada will defer a case to another Country is a sexual assault of a minor within their territory has been alleged to have occurred, even the US will not do that.

Her lawyers can even amend her claims by cutting off the things that happened in Nigeria and for things like kidnapping, forcible imprisonment, etc though happened in Nigeria, they can allege violation of her human rights, which can be prosecuted anywhere.

Moreso, Canada have a broad and liberal interpretation and application of personal jurisdiction, they take the plaintiff-oriented approach to jurisdiction. If the tort been claimed was suffered in Canada, despite the fact that the injury leading to the tort occurred somewhere else and by someone in a foreign Nation, Canada can take over personal jurisdiction over the other person and the case...they are oriented in such a way to protect their residents. E.g. If she can proof that, she suffered pains, humiliations, etc after returning to Canada, after the imprisonment in Nigeria or that she suffered stomach pains in Canada after taking that portion in Nigeria...despite the fact that, the actual event that lead to the pains occurred outside Canada and even if the Pastor has zero property or connection to Canada, Canada will assert jurisdiction over the case and the pastor, so as to protect their residents.

komekn:
Her allegations and claims are hinged on hearsay evidence tied to circumstance. How reasonable?

You are using rhetoric which is implied but without a definitive framework to portray seemingly unsubstantiated evidence even conversations recorded on her laptop. That evidence may be ruled inadmissible, no consent and suggested entrapment. Making a personal authentication is not credible evidence, based on your say so. He said /She said evidence is what I loosely term hearsay and is the substance of thier contention.

Hearsay is not so restrictive in its parameters by your
definition. But I will quote below a simple extract below in reference to Canadian law of which the essential principal is not lost.

Hearsay evidence is any statement, either written or oral, which was made out of court, but is presented in court to prove the truth of that statement. It is a type of evidence that is generally considered inadmissible.

Personal credibility will be a major issue for both of them. If they have been found to have intentionally misrepresented Themselves (Fraud) , essentially told a pack of lies to any official Canadian bodies, immigration for instance, etc.


Then personal credibility will be lost, in this regard Ms O could be in a position of disadvantage. That's the first failed test and the second is on insufficient evidence corroborated and or substantiated.


Personally I think the matter will be withdrawn once Suliemans lawyer get stuck into it. As you can imagine they will concentrate on her credibility.

Either way great drama. Meanwhile I don't think Suleiman is a saint and neither is Otobo holy Mary.

Personal credibility will only be question, if all the evidence one have is his/her own testimony. However, if you have additional exhibits to collaborate your in court testimony, even if you had lied in the past, that will not be held against one.

We are both on the same page, that both of them might have some credibility issues, but to say that the case is dead merely because of that is very premature.

Lastly, the definition for 'Hearsay' you posted is wrong, if you took it from somewhere online, you deliberately left some vital information. Out of court statements are not 'Hearsay', if repeated in court by the person that said them or witness them been said out of court. Your definition of hearsay is so broad such that, it will exclude 100% of witness testimonies from been considered.

This is a full quote from wikipedia on hearsay and it includes what you left out in your quote above, and I also provided the wikipedia link below, note the highlight portion:

"...Hearsay evidence is "an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of matter asserted therein". In certain courts, hearsay evidence is inadmissible (the "Hearsay Evidence Rule" unless an exception to the Hearsay Rule applies.

For example, to prove Tom was in town, the attorney asks a witness, "What did Susan tell you about Tom being in town?" Since the witness's answer will rely on an out-of-court statement that Susan made, Susan is not available for cross-examination, and it is to prove the truth that Tom was in town, it is hearsay. A justification for the objection is that the person who made the statement is not in court and thus is insulated from cross-examination. Note, however, that if the attorney asking the same question is not trying to prove the truth of the assertion about Tom being in town but the fact that Susan said the specific words, it may be acceptable. For example, it would be acceptable to ask a witness what Susan told them about Tom in a defamation case against Susan because now the witness is asked about the opposing party's statement that constitutes a verbal act..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay

As you can see, the hearsay doctrine does not apply to her...because, she is not quoting what someone else told her that the Pastor did, she is stating what she experience and can relate to...and as such it is not hearsay.

komekn:
Firstly, Canadian law is based on British common law.

There is still a requirement for evidential substantiation. So making an allegation in itself is not evidence.

In making legal claims that are based almost entirely on hearsay evidence is considerably hard, even with a lower burden of proof.

Integrity and credibility will become the principal for progression as well as the, simple argument based on the Reasonable Man Test.

From what I have seen she fails on both principle tests.

None of her her allegations are based on heresay...If I missed some, can you please list the ones that fall under the heresay doctrine? Remember, that heresay means, you did not witness what you are saying, you heard it from someone, who is not in court to personally testify to it.

Reading through her allegations and what she has been putting out on the internet, she was actively involved and as such, they are not heresay...though, none of us can state with 100% if they are true, that is for the court to decide, but her evidence will go in. The other thing the defendant lawyers can do is to challenge the chain of custody of her evidence e.g. the snapchat, facebook, chats, text, etc...because she alleges that her phone and laptop got lost, how then was she able to get those things? But, if she retrieve them from a backup, or later found the phone/laptop, the defendants will fall flat or they have to bring forth their own prove that, she did not find the phone/laptop or they were not retrieved.

Yes, making an allegation is not evidence; at trial one is require to prove each count of their allegation either through their testimony and/or exhibits properly entered into the records.

I do not see her falling on both counts...my guess is, what you meant by 'Evidential Substantiation', is what is called 'Authentication'...Yes, she have to authenticate each of her evidence, even a graduate lawyer can walk her through how to authenticate her evidence and it is very simple...if it is a facebook chat...all she need to say (or through a series of ask/answer sections with her lawyer) is that..."I Miss.....took these snapchats on x and y days, at x time, at y location and it is a true representation of my conversation with x and y".

She does not need to provide any digital forensic to prove their authenticity...rather, it is the defense that has to do that, should they want to challenge her evidence.

GogobiriLalas:
Not sure the facts are as you stated but if they her then the Court may assert subject matter and personam jurisdiction....an easier way would be for them to use a long arm statute bearing in mind that the defendant could always plead forum non convenien...how do you compell appearance?

The Canadian court will first have to decide if it has jurisdiction or not. Usually, the person suing must state some statement of facts on that claims, putting forward why the court have jurisdiction to hear the case. The opposing party can also challenge those statements, even without a challenge, courts on their own usually answer the jurisdictional question and will only move forward if they think, they have jurisdiction.

If the court asserts jurisdiction and the plaintiff can prove the defendant was severed, the defendant have certain days to file an answer with the court. These are usually short answers...where the defendant can just accept as true or denied or state that, they do not have sufficient information to accept or denied each allegation of the plaintiff. If the defendant did not file the answer, the plaintiff can move the court to render judgement in their favor on the entirety of their case...the court will usually deny this motion and give the defendant more time to file an answer...but after about 3-5 adjournment without the defendant showing or answering, the gavel will come down against them....The court will not go out of its way to compel appearance.

Convenient forum motions are usually, when a lot of the evidences are in another location and it will be near impossible to move them to this forum. The dependence can definitely file the motion, alone with motion challenging jurisdiction or immediately after....but there is no strict rules about this as it is up to the Judge to grant or deny it. But, the Plaintiff can raise the fact that Nigeria is an inconvenience forum and that her rights will be tampered upon and also that, she will not be able to get justice in Nigeria...she can even cite the fact that, the Nigeria judicial system had abused her rights in this case already, e.g. holding in a cell beyond the 48 hours allowed by the Nigeria law before charging her to court, she can allege that the defendant used his influence and power to punish her and also that the Nigeria court is corrupt and the Canadian court might be sympathetic to that, because they will be able to provide evidence to provide their points.

Keneking:
"In videos she made and uploaded on instagram, she says she will no longer allow herself to be put in situations that trivialize what happened to her." Does she want to sue?


-Useless tokunbo
- You can only sue in South Africa, no court in Nigeria has the jurisdiction

Moreso, most of those shows make you sign an undertaking against suing....because her suite will be civil, I doubt if SA will pursue any criminal case against Kemen on her behalf.

And in civil suite, you are basically asking for damages and for the amount to worthwhile, she has to join BBN in suite (and she must have signed her rights to sue away); so suing is not possible.

InvertedHammer:
/
Let me see how the process server will serve him.

What jurisdiction does the court in Canada have over this case?

For those who don't know, anyone can stroll into a court house, fill the forms, get a case number and voila! Court case. No big deal. Yes. It is that easy. You can finish filing a lawsuit before some people could finish filling JAMB forms. No lawyer(s) needed. I believe her aim is for out of court settlement. She is taking the extortion gimmick too far.

I hope she has duly signed contracts between two of them.

LOL.
\\

Canada have jurisdiction, both personal and subject matter jurisdiction; and the court will have jurisdiction to hear the case, if it can assert either, but in this case they have both...Canada have subject matter jurisdiction because, the plaintiff alleged that part of the allegations were committed within Canadian territory...Canada can also assert personal jurisdiction, because the defendant own properties in Canada.

This is a civil case, she does not need iron clad evidence. She does not need to proof beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain her claims...she only need to prove by a preponderance of evidence, which is a lesser proof burden and threshold. In a proof requiring only preponderance of evidence, to sustain their claim on each count, the plaintiff need only proof either through her testimony or evidence that the defendant 'more than likely' committed the allegation.

Also remember, there are 16 allegations against the Pastor, so even if she could not prove 1, there are 15 mor; and base on the evidences out there, it is doubtful if at least one or two of the charges will not stick. And if only one charge sticks, that will negate all of the Pastor's innocence and pronouncements that, he had never met her and was only sending her money out of the kindness of his heart.

As much as it is nice to always have a signed contract...you don't need a dully signed contract for it to be enforceable in a law court. Majority of contracts out there are oral contracts, it is up to the Judge to decide who is more believable...and sometimes duly signed contracts are not enforceable, you have to look at the content and the circumstance surrounding it.

No one, including the Pastor should take any court case with levity, any false move you are gone and I believe the Pastor will address this with the ultimate seriousness that it deserves.

InvertedHammer:
Yes. Concrete evidence that Ms Otobo must provide.
If it goes to trial, Suleiman's lawyers will examine the evidence, scrutinize the hell out of it. Some evidence may not be admissible in court even if legit (eg. In a civil suit, a recorded conversation is not admissible if there is no consent from both parties). Legal technicalities is a beast. Having evidence is usually not enough. Like I said, I hope she has copies of the contract she signed with Suleiman.

Not true.

Canada is a one party consent country just like the US (except in the US some states are dual party)...so she can use her secret recordings against him in court as long as she is a party to that conversation.

InvertedHammer:
It is not as easy as you think. The burden of proof is on Ms Otobo. If she asserts, she must prove. Some of her evidence may not be admissible in court. Moreover, it is not enough to show evidence, she or her lawyers must tie the evidence to the claims.
If I were Suleiman, I will ignore the whole thing. The court in Canada has no jurisdiction over the case.

This is a civil and not a criminal case, she only need to prove by 'preponderance of evidence' which is a lesser proof threshold compare to 'beyond any reasonable'.

She have enough to meet that threshold and if the Pastor go to Canada and continue to say he does know her except for sending her money out of his benevolence, her lawyers will make mockery of him on cross examination. So, I think the best strategy for the Pastor is to get it dismissed and he cannot, then try to settle it outside the court.

On Jurisdiction, Canada even appear to have more jurisdiction than Nigeria in this case. He met her in Canada, invited her from Canada to abroad, etc. The courts can also assert personal jurisdiction over the Pastor if he owns properties in Canada and it appears the summon was served on his Canadian address.

In the case of Nigeria, the blackmail that was alleged did not appear to have occurred in Nigeria, so her lawyers can try if they can dismiss it on jurisdictional grounds.

mrborntodoit:
Apostle no dey live for Canada, make she come file suit for Nigeria

If she wins, he can be ban from stepping into Canada and she can enforce her judgement against the Apostle's interest and properties in Canada.

The Judgement can also be registered in Nigeria and enforced against the Apostle.

Since they met in Canada, the Canadian court can assert jurisdiction to hear the case.

I also doubt if the court in Nigeria have the jurisdiction to her the Apostle's blackmail case in Nigeria, if the alleged blackmail did not happen in Nigeria, but her lawyers in Nigeria are in the best position to look into that and challenge jurisdiction.

Next2Bezee:
As a popular pool, that hotel is supposed to have life guards on stand-by whether or not they're having a busy day at the pool It could have been prevented if there was a lifeguard to save them or at least raise alarm so they can be saved on time.

People that visit the pool have to observe the rules and know their limits. As a learner myself, nothing fit carry me go the deep part of pool.

RIP to their parents.

The former part of your comment is not true, even in North America, you only have life guards on public beaches, public swimming pools and they are even only there on certain days...I have been to countless hotels home and abroad, no single lifeguard at the swimming pools.

But, the later part of your comment is on point, and it is good we all learn how to swim, you do not know when that skill will come handy.