Ijeoma Nkem Egeneonu v Levi Egeneonu
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice MacDonald |
| Judgment Date | 30 August 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWHC 2451 (Fam) |
| Court | Family Division |
| Date | 30 August 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No: FD13P02234 |
[2017] EWHC 2451 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice MacDonald
Case No: FD13P02234
Mr Andrew Powell (instructed by Bindmans LLP) for the Applicant
The Respondent appeared in person
Hearing date: 30 August 2017
Judgment Approved
INTRODUCTION
This is an application to commit the respondent, Levi Bernard Egeneonu (also known as Bernard Nkem), to prison for contempt of court. The application arises out of proceedings in wardship concerning the parties' three children, all born in the United Kingdom. The applicant, Ijeoma Egeneonu, is the children's mother. The respondent is the children's father. The applicant is represented today in court by Mr Andrew Powell of counsel. The respondent is today without legal representation at court, in circumstances which I will come to.
BACKGROUND
The background of this matter can be summarised relatively shortly. For the purposes of this judgment I take that background from the case summary provided to the court by those representing the applicant. I make clear that I do not, for the purposes of this judgment, make any findings of fact, and nor should my summary of the background for the purposes of this judgment be taken as making any findings of fact.
The brief background is that the applicant mother and the respondent father were married in 2001 and travelled to London together from Nigeria on 28 March 2002. The mother and the father hold dual British and Nigerian nationality, as do the three children. As I have recounted, the children were born and grew up in the United Kingdom.
On 16 July 2013, the entire family left London to travel to Nigeria. The mother contends before the court that this was a planned holiday and that she never intended to move back to Nigeria permanently. The mother further contends that, whilst in Nigeria, the respondent father told her that they would not be returning to the United Kingdom despite her wish to do so. The mother contends that she lived with her parents in Nigeria to escape what she alleges was the father's abuse, and that the children lived with the father, his family or his staff. The father, as I understand it, disputes substantial portions of this narrative.
The mother returned to the United Kingdom from Nigeria using emergency travel documentation obtained from the British High Commission on 12 November 2013. The children did not come with her. On 22 November 2013, the mother commenced proceedings in the United Kingdom, applying for the children to be made wards of court and for an order that the children be returned to the jurisdiction of England and Wales. The father initially engaged with the proceedings, having returned to the United Kingdom from Nigeria on 4 December 2013. A number of hearings followed.
On 17 December 2013, the father gave an undertaking to Moylan J, as he then was. That undertaking is recorded in the recital to the order and read as follows: 'Not to intimidate, harass or pester the mother, whether by himself or obstructing anyone else to do so'. He also undertook: 'not, whether by himself or instructing or encouraging any other person, to use or threaten violence against the mother'. At a hearing, on 20 December 2013, an injunctive order was made by Moylan J. Paragraph three of that order recites 'neither party shall leave the jurisdiction of England and Wales until the children arrive in the jurisdiction of England and Wales'.
A further hearing occurred on 29 January 2014. At that hearing the father was in attendance and was represented. The following matters were determined by the court:
a. the children's habitual residence was in England and Wales;
b. the children should be made wards of court;
c. the father had control of or knowledge of the whereabouts of the children and was able to cause their return to the jurisdiction of England and Wales from Nigeria;
d. the children should be produced at the British High Commission in Lagos Nigeria by no later than noon, Nigerian time on 6 February 2014, when the children were to be transferred into the care of their maternal uncle for the purposes of applications by that relative for emergency travel documents;
e. the father should provide written consent for the nomination of that family member as the applicant for emergency travel documents;
f. the father should cause the children to be returned to the jurisdiction of England and Wales no later than midnight on 14 February 2014;
g. the father should confirm no later than 12 noon on 7 February 2014, with independent documentary evidence in support, that he had booked flights for the children's return to this jurisdiction; and
h. the father should arrange for payment in the amount of £285 to the relative to cover application fees for the emergency travel documents.
Despite that order, and detailed arrangements being negotiated, it is said that the father failed to return, or effect the return, of the children to the jurisdiction of England and Wales. Accordingly, the matter was returned to court in February 2014, and an order was made on 14 February 2014 for the father personally to attend a hearing on 19 February 2014. Service of that order was attempted on the father at the family property but was unsuccessful.
At approximately 7pm on 14 February 2014, the applicant received a telephone call from a caller in Nigeria informing her that the caller had seen the first respondent in Nigeria. The father did not attend subsequent court hearings listed in February, notwithstanding the court making orders directing the father personally to attend each of those hearings.
In April 2014, those acting on behalf of the mother issued proceedings in relation to why the father should not be found in contempt of court for breaching a number of the orders that had been made prior to that date. The committal proceedings were initially listed to take place before the court on 1 and 2 December 2014. Due to various issues, which I need not go into, the final hearing ultimately was listed to take place on 2, 4, and 6 March 2015. The final hearing of the mother's committal application proceeded over the course of three days, during which the father participated via a telephone link. He had, by that time and prior to prior to the final hearing, dispensed with the services of Freemans Solicitors, who he had previously instructed.
Evidence was heard from the father and two witnesses that he sought to rely on. A further relative was also represented by counsel at that hearing. The father submitted a large number of documents in support of his case.
On 6 March 2015, the court found that the father was in contempt of court on the basis of grounds set out in the application for his committal dated 11 April 2014. On 6 March, the court indicated that it was appropriate for it to defer consideration of sentencing against the father, to enable the father to personally attend the sentencing hearing and to enable him properly to present mitigating circumstances to the court. In his judgment, Newton J, who conducted the committal hearing, indicated that he would be placing particular weight as to whether the children had been by then returned to this jurisdiction.
On 8 May 2015, the father did not attend the sentencing hearing, or take advantage of the opportunity to telephone the court, or, seemingly, to instruct lawyers. In those circumstances, Newton J proceeded to sentence the father to 12 months immediate imprisonment for each of the breaches found proved to be served concurrently.
It is apparent, from the history that I have recited, that at the time the sentence was passed the father was out of the jurisdiction in Nigeria. The mother engaged in further litigation in an attempt to recover the father from the jurisdiction of Nigeria to serve his sentence in this country. That litigation, which I do not need to go into in detail, resulted in her application to recover the father from Nigeria being dismissed by the President of the Family Division on 18 January 2017.
In any event, by the end of February 2017 it became apparent that the father had, of his own volition, returned to the jurisdiction of England and Wales, although he did not make himself known to the court at this time. In the circumstances, the mother restored the matter to the court on 7 March 2017, and applied for orders designed to ascertain the whereabouts of the father within this jurisdiction. With the assistance of these orders, the Tipstaff and the Metropolitan Police located the whereabouts of the father. He was arrested and bought before the court. On 26 March 2017, the father was committed to HMP Pentonville. The father continues to serve his sentence for contempt, but is due to be released, having served half of it, on 26 September 2017.
The mother, thereafter and entirely understandably, continued to pursue litigation in this jurisdiction, in an effort to secure the location of the children's whereabouts in Nigeria, and to secure the return of the children to this jurisdiction. By this time the father was represented by VLS solicitors. They filed a notice of acting on 19 May 2017.
On 7 June 2017, the matter came before Baker J. By that time, the mother contends, the father had not provided any further information concerning the whereabouts of the children to the mother directly, or through her solicitors, since his imprisonment. On 27 June 2017, pursuant to an order of Baker J, the father filed a statement indicating that he had no objection to the children returning to the United Kingdom but claiming that, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ijeoma Nkem Egeneonu v Victor Egeneonu
...to five such judgments and I identify them as follows: the judgment which is reported at [2015] EWHC 954 Fam, a decision of Newton J; [2017] EWHC 2451 Fam, a decision of McDonald J; a decision at [2018] EWHC 524 Fam, a decision of Holman J; a decision at [2018] EWCA Civ 1714, a decision o......
-
Levi Nkem Egeneonu v Ijeoma Egeneonu
...Mrs Egeneonu applied for his further committal. That application was adjourned at his request on 30 August 2017 by MacDonald J ( [2017] EWHC (Fam) 2451) and heard on 11–12 and 19 September 2017 by Mr David Williams QC: [2017] EWHC (Fam) 2336. He committed Mr Egeneonu to prison for a furth......