I never had s*x with Femi Fani-Kayode for six years — Ex Beauty Queen, Precious Chikwendu
The Customary Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, on Tuesday adjourned till Wednesday to hear an application by a former beauty queen, Precious Chikwendu seeking access to the four children she bore for a former Minister of Aviation, Femi Fani-Kayode.
In the suit, Chikwendu told the court that Fani-Kayode never consummated his six-year relationship with her. Chikwendu said she was forced to remain celibate during the cohabitation and alleged that the four children she birthed in her affair with Fani-Kayode were conceived via artificial insemination.
Chikwendu made the averrments in her November 29, 2021, “Application for issuance of civil summons/plaint” against Fani-Kayode (the respondent) in suit FCT/CCK8/01/043/2021 filed by her counsel, Mr Abiodun E. Olusanya.
Chikwendu said her relationship with Fani-Kayode, was full of “woes, lies, a*saults, b*ttery and domestic v*olence, lack of trust and absence of love, public disgr*ce and sh*me, and absence of s*x due to the inability to s*xually perform and intolerable behaviour of the respondent.”
She added: “At every attempt, the petitioner made to have s*xual intercourse with the respondent, there was never erection of the respondent’s manhood and p*netration was frustrating.
The petitioner then insisted parties should seek medical help for the respondent, and on visiting the family doctor, the respondent claimed he was diagnosed of having a cyst on his manhood, which is not allowing the respondent to have erect!on and or perform s*xually, “The respondent was supposedly placed on an antibiotic and the doctor suggested that the respondent should go and decide when he wishes to remove/untangle the cyst.
“The respondent never took the medication, but any time the petitioner tried to engage the respondent in s*xual activities, the respondent would claim his manhood was p*ining him and then drink the medication. The petitioner bought intimacy gadgets for the respondent, but the respondent refused to use it and warned the petitioner never to suggest it again.”
About The Author
