₦airaland Forum

moremi2008:
Death and devastation @ Sagamite thinking he really started his company with 13k GBP!!

Triple death @ all this acetaminophen-guzzling for another man's migraine!!!

Sagamite, your foolishness is terminal. You have locked yourself up in a cage lined with mirrors; now you are only barking at yourself.

We all know you are a dumb cretin, there is really no need to elaborate.

rhymz:
Seriously, a lot of women make very stewpid passionate statement that defiles common sense.
This feminism thing has become an avenue that criminal females exploit to get rich. How can anyone in their right senses support a woman that knew nothing about how this man made his wealth to bequeath to her such obscene amount of money all because she was married to him in the UK. Does it even make sense? Most of these guys talking about the man being stingy and wicked wait until it happens to you then you will know how easy it is to dole out a million dollars to a gold digger whose only job through out you were with her was to bear you childrien and spend your money. Yesterday I was in a similar argument with a friend in the UK, she kept on talking about how it was possible for Anne Macauley to get 2face to settle her bigtime( if 2face marries her in the US or UK) in the event of a divorce. I was like, how does a court compel a man whose source of livelyhood, wealth and properties are not in the west but in Nigeria. Is that even possible?
A lot of women these days are just so obsessed with the prospects of getting half of a man's worth in the event of a divorce, it renders marriage a useless union and affair to get into. Whatever happened to moderate settlement, why do feminists have this misconception that whenever there is a divorce it is usually the fault of the man and that the woman must have suffered in the marriage and deserves a settlement that looks like a revenge on the man. A lot of people make senseless arguments and demands they wont even oblige if they were in such conditions. Very stewpid laws that is gravely political and unneccessarily vengeful.

Thank you.

Very well said.

chaircover:
I haven't read all the replies to this thread, but this is my take on this.

2.1 million sounds like a lot but in reality it isn't. It will just about buy her & the kids a house similar to the one that they probably live in now.

The 35K a year will NOT be enough to pay for the bills and maintenance of that house alone, talk less of other things.

Even if I was to tolerate this argument, which I don't, then it would make more sense a court demands the man provide such houses for the kids till they are adults and then take ownership back, not give the 21m to her to buy herself a house all in the name of "the kids".

chaircover:
By all means if indeed the money used ot set up the company didnt come from them both but from the husbands family, then that should be taken into consideration, however on the flip side, how many married men with access to $13,000 are able to do anything tangible with it. Wifey could at the time could have encouraged her hubby to buy a car or go on holiday and blow the whole lot. She gave him her support when he used the money to start the business and over the years would have supported him in various ways.

And so?

If I knew I can collect money for encouragement I would have been rich by now from collecting fees from Super Eagles players.

Another critical point that makes this argument irrelevant was stated yourself: "how many married men with access to $13,000 are able to do anything tangible with it".

Yes, there are a lot of married men today and in the past with $13K that don't turn it into millions. That is the norm. That just tells us, his turning it into millions was his work using his brain, not due to his marriage.

chaircover:
Ive said this before and the fact that a woman doesnt put money down doesnt mean that she is useless. An encouraging word here, a prayer there, a shoulder to lean on cannot be expressed in monetary values and this should not be overlooked. Sometimes when you know that someone has your back, you become more confident and you tend to take more risks and these risks may pay off.

Are you havin a laff?

So he would have not made his money without her prayers and her shoulder?

You will have to show me the scientific research that links shoulder to lean on to taking risks.

chaircover:
I personally think that if the man can truly afford it, then he should give her what she wants and let her go on her way. The Lawyers are probably getting more than the figure we are talking about here anyway which is a shame and the children are watching the acrimony and it cant be doing them any good. The Law suit is also going to affect both husband and wife mentally an healthwise whether they loose or win. Going to court is stressful in its self.

The other side of love is sure worse than hate if there is such a thing and I hope they can sort this out without too many casualties.

I personally believe that people should only claim entitlement to what they have earned. That is where the problem lies.

She is a Company Secretary. She has done other work before that. That is her earning potential under rationale thinking. Any oppotunity cost that restricted her pay during the marriage based on the request of the husband or reasonable sacrifice should be compensated based on that earning potential.

She is not worth or entitled to $21m of HIS money.

chaircover:
Many of the men talking are not married. I am married and I know that a lot goes into these partnerships from both sides and money is just part of it but lots of other things make up a marriage.

If many successful married men were to be true to themselves, many got there with support from the wife and I dont mean financialy. You have a spring in your step when you know that there is someone there for you; Your number one fan. Someone who tells you that the sky is the limit, someone who crys with you and laughs with you. Someone who beleives in you. Someone who interceeds for you. Someone who wants the best for you and so on.

Many of you look at it as a business partnership and marriage isnt like that.

This is a fallacy.

Many to most marriages are miserable including that of those that are rich. Marital support has little to do with success except the partner has some kind of direct contribution that aids success.

chaircover:
As regards the house, unless he has full custody of the kids which I doubt, then the kids should be able to live in the affluence that they are used to. Its not the kids fault that mummy and daddy cant live with each  other.

Like I said, If he is indeed a billionaire then 40 million will not kill him; he could have easily lost that amount on the stock exchange or in a bad business deal. He also has the consolation that some of that money is going to go towards making his kids comfortable.

If the kids need to live in affluence, there are too rational ways:

1) Pass them to the parent that can provide it.

2) The parent can provide it temporarily, that is not an excuse to rob one parent for the other to benefit.

ThiefOfHearts:
You have yet to explain why he rotates MODELS back and forth if its not just for attention? If he merely liked them why replace every month/year? Never regular women, just models. Im supposed to believe its a coincidence? abeg go and sleep!

He is single, rich, confident, good-looking, interesting, charming and he does not want to marry.

The first makes him available, the 2nd to 5th makes him attractive, the last makes him a challenge. Those are volcanic mix for women especially young ones.

The want him for his pros and see it as a challenge to be the one to tie him down. It will be euphoric for them if they can show the world they are the one that got George Clooney to go to the alter. A huge achievement.

What was your question again?

Why does he rotate models?

He is single, they want him, they are attractive, he would gladly have them but when they start deluding themselves about what he has publicly declared he would never do, he ends it. Then there is another one lining up to take the last ones place. He restarts the loop.

Why will he go for regular women, when fine woman are lining up to date him?

Would you date a train ticket inspector with a BMI of 35 if there are hot hollywood/sports stars, millionaire professionals or intellectual Gods like Sagamite lining up to date you?

Christian <- - - - - - > Sagamu = Failure to connect.

[quote author=Kilode?! link=topic=879387.msg10272292#msg10272292 date=1330184740]So Sagamite found his old friend back? or he found him?

You two need a fight ring, I can organize it.[/quote]Sho!

Which old friend?

No tell me say na that one wey like to be banned?

ThiefOfHearts:
Dont mind him jare.

Majority of the time it's about attention. Take Clooney for instance. Last year it was an Italian model. this year blonde American, next year most likely a french one. Im supposed to believe he "likes these women" and not just trying to show off? Abeg. Story.

See ya mouth!

Is he dating models or dating fine women? Why would he want to date ugly women? So fine women cannot be liked?

Would you date ugly men? Would you date men that live in slums, can't speak English and work as a vulcanizer? Does that mean you don't like the fine men you have dated?

divine2043:
Michael Priest is a celeb, as far as i am concerned. Ladies should not think they can come milk a guy dry. I reqlly hope the guy wins because I have not heard of the guy not taking care of his family. People should know what they are going into.

You cqn see the mentqlity of mqny women on here. You see thqt many Nigerian ladies (and some men) just wanna sit on their qsses qnd get married to a rich spouse. Money grabbers, get a job

The guy is likely to win.

I believe if the guy is this smart (divorce technique and money-making ability) he would have hidden most of his money. She herself does not know. They do not know his real worth, they are fighting over estimates that might be far lower. Even if she gets $20m, he could easily be worth $150m.

But he is being nice to give her what she can (at best) claim she is entitled to.

jedisco:
I think you all are missing something- RELATIVITY
You dont expect settlement of a spouse worth 5 Billion to be thesame with that of one worth 500 million under thesame circumstances.
Nobody is asking whether its too much or not enough. C'mon its just common sense

Why not?

queensmith:
your just trying to wind me up right? ok what are the children going to eat? where are they going to live? how they gonna get to school?

I remember an article from one of p diddys baby mamas; she stated that people hate on them because they believe all the women do is sit down and plan on how to spend the money! How can they!!! her son is the child of a rich man, he needs security, he needs insurance, he needs top education, he needs to enjoy the life his father can provide and he STILL needs the care of his mother!!!!

and you say no just so the rich can ditch the wife, the kids and keep the toys? I dont think so- once you enter marriage you know its a lifetime commitment and you stick by it. You dont like it you dont marry simple as!

This girl is a cretin! Nothing more than that. 

praetor:
all those supporting the ex-wife have missed an important point, he has offered her a generous lump sum, probably a house or two thrown in and monthly support payments for his children. Her demands are greedy and extreme. Why do you need $1M each year to look after your own children? It is ridiculous. The woman is a certified goldigger who sees her ex-husband as the ticket to becoming the Ivana Trump of Britain. Unfortunately for her, she is dealing with a very smart Nigerian businessman who didn't get to become wealthy by being conventional. I have a feeling that her divorce suit will be tied up for years and that she will have a very long hard battle ahead of her. And from the looks of this latest twist, I think Mr Prest will actually end up being the winner.

Thank you. Some cretin is still asking us what will the kids eat and how will they go to school.

jedisco:
@sagamite I really thought you were more matured than this. I followed this topic from page 1 and noticed you called almost everybody with different views from yours cretins. Well let me say if you are trying to dissuade someone from an opinion it would be better to trade intelligent points and not insults.

Chineke! I no you before?

Biyi, is that you?

Mate, I am intelligent enough to know what approaches work for people based on reading of a few of their utterances.

ileobatojo:
You’re right, but they should clean him out as they leave  
Maybe he won’t do it again next time!

You no serious.  

ileobatojo:
Generally, perhaps. But when it comes to protecting the interests of the 'weak', ‘downtrodden', 'the used and abused'; it is fair that they step in. Should relax the extent of their intervention? Yes. But it was borne out of good intentions on the part of the state.

I can’t say that I fully understand the workings of the western mind when it comes to monetary affairs involving the married. I was completely befuddled when I learnt I could not pick my child as the primary beneficiary to my retirement account. If married, you HAVE to pick your spouse! That gave me some insight into how they operate though.

The state has absolutely no business in relationships. The state has done its part by setting criminal laws and giving liberty.

No one forced you to choose someone. No one can force you to stay with them. It is a free choice you made, if you are weak that is your business. Otherwise, the state should also get involved when women we approach turn us down after raising our hopes. We are weak too na.

Secondly, the state can not be privy to the events in a relationship to judge if an outcome is wrong. If people are not compatible, it is up to them to break up. It is not the states business.

Finally, it is people's human right to choose who they want to associate with or have relationships with.

ileobatojo:
I agree, I am more for dividing the property based on equitable contributions to the wealth. I would make an exception for spouses who suffered abuse, were cheated on, or were forced to remain housewives during the marriage.

I disagree with you on the latter half of your statement except it is a divorce in Saudi Arabia.

They have choices and freedom, no one forced them to remain there.

My only exception is when there is a mutual agreement to be a housewife. The state has no business in the dynamics of relationships. Would you fine her for using sex as a weapon too?

igbaodun:
Why are you stuttering? Do you stammer in real life?


Make yourself clear dude or write in Yoruba if clear English is more than what you can handle.


Post clear or don't post at all.

Is this cretin on drugs?

What the fck is he smoking?

queensmith:
@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.

You are a cretin!

What value do you put on pregnancy. Poor women don't have children? They get paid for it?

She didn't want the children?

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!

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!

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.

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?

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?

^^^ Good point. But making Nigeria that is a long project that will take a few decades.

Any integration now is rubbish.

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.

phraoh:
£1million every year for children Upkeep,y not kukuma give the man the children to take care of with less.Thats why i keep telling all this men that love is shacking to take their would-be wife to Nigeria or wherever they are from and marry them their and forgot this UK.If,later,yu want to divorce,we will go back to that Nigeria and divorce.God punish you to say Pimm abt dividing the man's wealth,the Judges will start with yu self.lol.

Thank you.

If you think the kids cannot live without some luxury life, then hand over custody to the parent that can provide them such a life.

moremi2008:
We men can rant and rave all we want. This law/legal precedence has been around for decades and unlikely to change anytime soon. The way the law sees it, that man and his wife were both building his empire TOGETHER because he wouldn't have been able to focus on business if she wasn't home to keep the fort. At last, that's the argument.

It is important to understand the origins of what appears to be a consensus among law systems in the West. Women were traditionally required to stay at home to raise the kids and some women were left with the short end of the stick when after investing their best years raising the kids/keeping the home, their husbands left them for younger women and plunged them into abject poverty! It's only fair that the courts asked the man to split his assets 50/50.

Even today, the courts make distinctions between housewives and wives with careers. Most women that get very high divorce payouts were stay-at-home-wives of very wealthy men and can typically only claim 50% of that portion of the man's net worth that accrued to the man AFTER the marriage (and not before). This is another reason why it is wiser for men to delay marriage until their late thirties or early forties so they have some assets their wives can't claim in case of divorce. It is also wise for men to make sure their wives work and have their own careers!

We can scream and shout as much as we want but we are not going to remain single forever. I have seen a few men that chose to remain permanent bachelors and NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING good came out of it.

You are a cretin!

And women don't have choices in this day and age about the choice of lifestyle they elect?

How is telling people to share their sweat 50/50 fair?

Argue for me how you arrived at the conclusion they built it together. Will the men not have been capable of the wealth if they did not marry the woman? How does housework equate to millions?

[size=18pt]Oil tycoon can use African law to fight £17m divorce (even though he built his fortune in UK, his wife is British and they live together in London)[/size]

One of Britain’s most successful black businessmen is attempting to strip his ex-wife of a £17.5million divorce payout by claiming that under ‘native’ African law his oil company doesn’t belong to him. Michael Prest, 50, was criticised by a senior judge last year for treating court proceedings ‘as a game’ by claiming to be £48million in debt instead of fabulously wealthy.

The High Court judge estimated his fortune to be at least £37.5million and ordered him to make the massive settlement. The oil tycoon was also told to pay maintenance of £24,000 a year for each of his four children, along with their private school fees and medical bills. The businessman and his ex-wife  Yasmin, 49, have blown almost £3million in legal fees fighting each other after the bitter break-up of their marriage in 2008. Now Mr Prest has succeeded in the first stage of his attempt to get the huge payout overturned by the Appeal Court. He has been granted permission to appeal by relying on Nigerian ‘customary native law’.

Mr Prest founded Petrodel Resources around ten years ago and in 2007 it was reported to have a turnover of close to £2.5billion.
But his lawyer Martin Pointer QC told the Appeal Court that a gift of £10,000 ‘seed money’ from his Nigerian father before he died in 1992 was the foundation stone on which his oil empire was built.
He said that under ‘customary law’ in Nigeria Mr Prest became head of the family with a responsibility to use his late father’s money to look after his four siblings and their children.

Mr Pointer argued his company’s assets did not belong to Mr Prest  but were ‘held in trust’ for his children and those of his siblings under Nigerian law.
Mr Prest’s brother Michel has  also launched a claim in the Nigerian High Court to declare that Petrodel Resources forms a part of their late father’s estate.
If successful, Mr Prest’s personal wealth would be dramatically reduced.
Mrs Prest has argued that Petrodel is ‘100 per cent owned and controlled’ by her former husband and has told the court it is effectively his ‘alter ego’.
The court heard Mrs Prest was born in England and grew up on the Isle of Man. She met Mr Prest, who was educated in Nigeria, in London and they married in 1993.
They lived in a £4million home in Bayswater, west London, and the oldest of their children is 14.
An £11.3million London property portfolio was also built up, with  almost all the flats and houses  being owned by one of Mr Prest’s numerous companies.

Mr Prest, who was named as one of the three most influential black  men in Britain in 2007, argued that  the Isle of Man-based company  Petrodel Resources should not have been included when assessing his ex-wife’s award.

Lord Justice Thorpe, sitting at the Appeal Court with Lord Justice Rimer and Lord Justice Patten, criticised Mr Prest’s ‘flagrant breach’ of his duty to disclose fully his financial affairs, as well as the ‘astronomical’ legal costs of the case. But he granted him permission to appeal ‘on the customary law point’.
Lord Justice Thorpe said: ‘The ownership of Petrodel is bound up with Nigeria and may be governed by customary law.’
Several of Mr Prest’s companies, including Petrodel Resources, are also appealing the divorce payout in their own right.
In the original High Court divorce case last October Mrs Prest claimed her husband was worth ‘many tens, if not hundreds, of millions of pounds’.
Mrs Prest had been seeking a payout of more than £30million, plus more than £730,000 a year for her and her children to meet their reasonable needs.
Mr Prest had offered her £27,000 a year and a lump sum of less than £2million. He claimed to have had no regular income for more than a year.
The family court hearing could not be reported, but details of the multi-million-pound divorce battle can now be disclosed  as the case has gone to the Appeal Court, which is not subject to the same blanket reporting restrictions.
Mrs Prest sat at the back of the Appeal  Court hearing with her lawyers and refused  to comment.
No date has been set for the full appeal.
Mr Prest has managed to keep a low public profile despite achieving huge success in the oil business. He became a successful oil trader before forming his own company in 2001.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103792/Oil-tycoon-Michael-Prest-use-African-customary-native-law-claim-17-5m-divorce-payout-back.html#ixzz1nOHcfkpV

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/02/20/article-2103792-11D30F3D000005DC-931_233x423.jpg   https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/02/20/article-2103792-11D30F34000005DC-889_233x489.jpg

jennykadry:
Cretin

There is no better advise than the one you get from your wife cos she gives it to you right. She cannot afford to make a mistake. Behind every successful man there is an angelic woman . Best advise ever- is advise given in the bedroom by a wife, solid and well constructed

Gives it to you right and records it to use in court? No Thanks.

Behind every successful man are his parents. They gave him the genes, nurtured and mentored him.

Wife gives sex and babies.

jennykadry:
That's you saga. Get a wife and then she will be willing to offer you good advise. You think I gave Kadry any tangible advise when we were dating? tell you something that you will use to make money and dump me for another woman later? no way When I got the rock on my finger and the kpali in my hand I was like yeaaaaa. . .  "what was your question again?

Nah, thank you!

I have friends and family to offer me advice and who would not think it needs to be rewarded. No woman can do better than that.

rman:
Nothing says 419 more than a woman that has not made a million dollars all her life, that now thinks she is entitled to $20million all because she had children for a man in marriage.

All the ladies defending this online are thieves and lazy.

The money the man is offering her is way above average of what she needs to live.

Let me make something clear, bruv.

If she finished university at 21 years old today, lets say for the entirety of her lifetime from day 1 of graduation she will make on average $60K per year (i.e. far more than the average people in the West make) over 44 years till she hits retirement at 65. What she would make in her working life is $2.65m.

The man has offered her $2.5m, that is on par with what she would have earned in her lifetime (on generous, not conservative, basis). He has covered all opportunity cost adequately and given her more than what she contributed.

Rubbish!

Current African businesses struggle to expand in their own countries because of a fcked business mentality of owners and command economies (instead of free-market economies) by rulers.

Expanding the geography is unlikely to change those limitations.

jennykadry:
Like she did not contribute to it eh kwa? You have no idea how many times my advise has helped my husband make wise business decisions and transactions. This woman might have done same, she allowed him impregnate her, opened her legs to Dr's and midwives to push the babies out,and you want him to give her peanuts? not in this life

Lets accept your conjectural speculation like if it is something a sane court should accept.

My friends give me more advice than any woman can ever give me. They can not even use that to claim a pound from me. tkb417 is currently asking for my advice on some work he is doing, I don't think I can go to court and demand a cut of it when he becomes the rich man he would be.

She opened her legs for a sweet rod she enjoyed, she has been adequately rewarded with pleasure. I am sure when she held her baby, she felt reward too.

Peanuts? He has offered her a figure well over any opportunity cost she can reasonably claim.

Let her get off her arse and work like he did.

jennykadry:
Compared to what [size=14pt]he is[/size] worth? mba nuuu. How can she keep up with her christian louboutin, louis vuitton, gucci, alexander mcqueenss, chloe, prada, chanel e.t.c

Your English is so fcking good. You combine grammar well.

Keep it up.

She should go and be worth something and keep buying her muslim louboutin etc.

He built his own wealth with $13K. She is being offered $2.5m and even a $35K living expenses back up. If she feels she is worth millions like he is, then she should work for it like he did. She already has several legs up than he had.

This is HIS money, let her go and make HERS!

jennykadry:
Pay her off you silly man

The man has tried to na.

He offered her $2.5m cash and $35K a year till she dies.

That is enough for her to use to build her own multi-million empire if she feels she is worth $21m.

[quote author=c.fours link=topic=859170.msg10268954#msg10268954 date=1330130969]you do no understand her post hehn?
beauty aside, do you think Oluchi would be married to a millionaire if she weren't a supermodel?
there are more beautiful women out there. but many rich men tend to go for the models. Maybe to show that they are rich and can afford it. who knows.
it's part beauty factor and part "trophy" factor. and both are intertwined.

And we are not saying that there is anything wrong with it. Just calling out your hypocrisy on the matter.
you seem to have a problem with women marrying rich men. but we don't see you encouraging men to marry ugly women out of "love"[/quote]See this dumbfuck bringing out her daft logic again.

How many millionaires are in the world? How many of them are married to supermodels? They don't marry women of other careers?

Why would many people want to marry someone they do not want to show off?

Keep dreaming I will help you out to encourage men to marry girls like you for love and ignore looks. Anuofia!

obowunmi:
The babe follows the money sha --- no long tin. Btw, why was she deported to Nigeria ? Isn't she from Zimbabwe ?

Saga you have a chance, when next you visit naija, you can enjoy yourself with her, and quickly graduate from singlehood.

Abi o.

E bi like say she dey shack up with some Naija bobo for Lagos, that na why dem deport am to Nigeria. Maybe one of those government contract gbogbo big boiz.