Ijeoma Nkem Egeneonu v Victor Egeneonu
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Cobb |
| Judgment Date | 05 October 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] EWHC 3029 (Fam) |
| Date | 05 October 2018 |
| Court | Family Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: FD13P02234 |
[2018] EWHC 3029 (Fam)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE — FAMILY DIVISION
Courtroom No. 36
1st Mezzanine
Queen's Building
The Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Cobb
Case No: FD13P02234
Mr P Hepher appeared on behalf of the Applicant
Ms N Shravat appeared on behalf of the Respondent
JUDGMENT (Approved)
The application before the court is brought by Ijeoma Egeneonu, the mother of three children. I shall refer to her hereafter as ‘the mother’. The three children I shall identify as C, aged 16, O, aged 13, and I, aged 11. They are all boys and they are currently believed to be in Nigeria where they were taken by their parents in 2013. The father of the children is Levi Egeneonu who I shall refer to as ‘Levi’ so as to distinguish him from the second respondent. At this hearing and by the application before the court, the mother seeks the committal to prison of the second respondent, Mr Victor Egeneonu, who I shall refer to as ‘Victor’.
The application was issued on 28 February 2018 and has an unfortunate litigation history, having twice previously been listed for final determination. When the case was last before the court, before Moor J, on 22 June substantively, it was clear that Victor was making significant admissions in relation to the matters alleged against him. These admissions were recorded in a document generated on the second day of the hearing before Moor J. Further explanation and concessions were offered in a statement served on 19 September 2018 but Victor continued to dispute other allegations and it was contemplated by the parties, and by Moor J, that those matters would be tried by me.
Therefore the case was listed before me with a two-day estimate on 4 and 5 October. I had, at the request of Victor's solicitors, made a production order that Levi should attend this hearing, although in the event he was not called. I received two large bundles of documents containing inter alia statements from the mother, statements of evidence from Victor, statements of evidence from Tribal Chief Umbieri, who has also attended at court, a large volume of exhibits and a number of judgments from judges who have previously dealt with the circumstances of these three children.
Yesterday, 4 October, the first day of the hearing, there were two material developments in relation to the litigation and its prosecution: (a) the mother formally conceded that she would not be in a position to prove the matters set out in paragraphs 5(b) to (h) of the Schedule of Allegations, and Mr Paul Hepher, counsel on her behalf, indicated that they were no longer going to be pursued; and (b) Victor conceded further facts relevant to proving two of the alleged breaches and further accepted by his counsel, Mr Neelo Shravat, that it was perfectly proper for me to draw an inference about his culpability in relation to those matters from those undisputed facts.
It was further indicated yesterday that in so far as there were any differences between the parties on the basis of agreement, Victor himself would not volunteer to give any oral evidence in respect of the same.
The case was adjourned part heard yesterday to allow counsel to discuss further the Schedule of Allegations and the record of acceptances by Victor and to reflect on their submissions relevant to mitigation. The application resumed on the second day, this morning.
The application has proceeded entirely in line with the requirements of rule 37 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 and the associated Practice Direction, 37A. I remind myself that the standard of proof applicable on this application is the criminal standard and it rests upon the applicant to prove each ground to that standard, see Mubarak v Mubarak [2001] 1 FLR 698. I have reminded myself of the guidance given by Theis J, sitting as a judge of the Court of Appeal, in the case of Re L [2016] EWCA Civ 173, and confirm that I have adhered to that guidance in my management of this hearing and in my consideration of the matters that have been laid before me. In fact, sensibly, no point is taken by Mr Shravat about the form or content of the Schedule of Allegations and no procedural point is taken on behalf of Victor that this, the process by which I now come to give judgment, has in any way been flawed.
The application that is before me has a very, very long history. It is unnecessary for me to rehearse or reproduce that history at any great length here. Few family lawyers, observers or commentators in the field of family law will be unaware of the case of Egeneonu because publicly reported judgments concerning this family are multiple and are easily identifiable on Bailii. I located no less than eight and when they are read together, they give a good flavour of the issues in the case and the dynamics of it.
Specifically I have had regard 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 of the Court of Appeal on an appeal brought by Levi; and [2017] EWHC 43, a decision of the former President of the Family Division, by which he confirmed that the contempt taking the form of an interference with the administration of justice was a criminal contempt.
I have also had access to and have read other judgments delivered in recent times by Williams J, Mr David Williams QC, as he then was, and notably the decision of Cohen J of 1 May 2018. Any one of those judgments (but certainly when taken together) will provide all the background that anyone needs to make sense of what follows.
In short, the mother and Levi were married in Nigeria in 2001 and came to England, where Levi had already been living, in 2002. The children, C, O and I, 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. She further contends that whilst in Nigeria, Levi 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 Levi's abuse, and that the children lived with Levi, his family or his staff.
Levi, as I understand it, disputes substantial portions of this narrative and I make no findings about it. In short, the mother returned to the United Kingdom from Nigeria without the children, using emergency travel documentation obtained from the British High Commission, on 12 November 2013. On 22 November 2013, she commenced proceedings in this jurisdiction, 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. Levi's engagement with those proceedings was sporadic but after he returned to the United Kingdom from Nigeria, a number of hearings followed at which he participated. Russell J warded the children. Within those proceedings and over the course of very nearly five years, multiple efforts have been made to secure the return of the children to this jurisdiction. They have, thus far, all failed.
It is, I think, sufficient to record that it is a matter of judicial finding that Levi has control and knowledge of the whereabouts of the children, that Levi has been in repeated breach of court orders for not returning or facilitating the children to the jurisdiction of England and Wales, that he is currently serving an 18-month term of imprisonment in respect of breaches of civil orders – this is his third period of imprisonment related to these proceedings – and that the children are believed to be living with a paternal aunt.
It is strongly believed that Victor is Levi's brother. This is indeed a matter of judicial finding, see paragraph 87 of the judgment of Cohen J, although perhaps not binding for present purposes as Victor was not represented or present in that litigation. Victor claims to be Levi's son and a half-brother to the subject children. His precise blood relationship with Levi is actually of little consequence to me in the determination of the matters that are before me.
Victor gave evidence, it appears, on a number of occasions before Russell J and in 2014, and for a period of time, he was joined as a party to the litigation. A number of orders were made against Victor in relation to the production of information and requirements for his cooperation with the return of the children. It has been, and remains, the mother's case that Victor has repeatedly done what he could to assist Levi in defeating the orders of the court so as to keep the children in Nigeria.
In 2015 the mother made an application that Victor should be committed to prison for breach of the orders that were then relevant against him. That application was heard by Newton J, who said this in his judgment delivered at that time:
“In my judgment Victor lied to the court on a number of occasions and continued over several hearings, with the express purpose of misleading what is in fact a very serious enquiry by this court. I am entirely satisfied that it was done deliberately. I do not in any way underestimate the potential influence of Levi Egeneonu upon him, but my findings, therefore, are that in relation to that part of the committal, that is to say that Victor Egeneonu had provided a false statement of truth in his sworn testimony and has actively told lies before a Judge of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Victor Dami Egeneonu v Ijeoma Nkem Egeneonu
...2018, Cobb J sentenced Victor Egeneonu (‘Victor’) to a term of 7 months' imprisonment for contempt of court: see Egeneonu v Egeneonu [2018] EWHC 3029 (Fam). Victor does not challenge the findings of contempt, most of which he had admitted, but now appeals against the length of the sentence.......