Tessy Dingba v David Chinedu Dingba

RECORDER JACK: In this matter, I have to determine an application dated 6 November 2024 for a final non-molestation order. Ms Dingba, whom I will call the applicant, made the application ex parte the following day in front of District Judge Pitman. The order appears at page 27 of the short electronic bundle. He attached a power of arrest to the order and made it to last until 7 November 2025. This is the return date on that order.

Before me, the respondent indicated that he wished to make a cross application for a non-molestation order against the application but so far as appears in the bundle, no such application has been made. Be that as it may, both sides were able on 27 February 2025 to obtain an order for the appointment of qualified legal representatives to conduct the cross-examination of the other side. In the event, Mr Neermal Soburrun appeared to cross-examine the respondent on behalf of the applicant and Mr Daberechi Iwuoha appeared to cross-examine the applicant on behalf of the respondent.

The chronology of this matter is this. The respondent was born on 23 June 1979. The applicant was born on 2 February 1983. In about December of 2018 the parties started a relationship and on 23 December 2019, they married in Nigeria. The respondent is a civil servant in Nigeria. The applicant does not appear to have had steady work but assisted her father with his finances. Her father lives in Derby, England.

In 2020, the two children of the marriage, twins, were born and following the birth, the applicant's mother came to live with them in the matrimonial home in Nigeria. The mother moved out in about June 2021. In July 2021, the applicant says that the respondent assaulted her. The children at the time were under a year old, she says. That is denied by the respondent and I will come back to my conclusions about that.

On 14 September 2022, the respondent collapsed. Copies of the medical notes appear in the longer bundle at electronic pages 115 and 116. He appears to have recovered from that but continues to have medical problems. In September 2023, the respondent was able to get himself released from the Nigerian civil service for a temporary period of two years. The parties at that stage were contemplating going to England. This was so that the applicant could attend the University of Derby to study nursing. The applicant and the respondent and their two sons arrived in England on 21 September 2023.

They went to live with the applicant's father who had a two bedroom property in Princes Street, Derby. At that time, there was a tenant, Mr Abbots, living in the apartment. So, the father occupied one bedroom, the tenant occupied the other bedroom and the four newcomers from Nigeria occupied the living area. At that stage, the position was that the fees which were due to the university, needed to start being paid. There had been earlier, in Nigeria, a sum of 35 million Naira, which is about £16,000 deposited into a bank account which had been used to demonstrate to the British authorities that the applicant would be able to pay for the fees. In fact, that money was not available for payment of the fees and there were difficulties which arose as a result of the need to put money together in order to pay the fees.

On 12 October 2024, the respondent started working for Creative Foods. That involved him spending quite a long time in cold conditions, which he found difficult after the warmth of Nigeria. In January 2024, Mr Abbots, the tenant at Princes Street, moved out and the applicant and the respondent were able to move into his bedroom. At that point, the applicant's father demanded her rent for use of the property, which put a further strain on the finances.

On 2 February 2024, there is an alleged assault on the applicant by the respondent, and I will come back to the details of that. When she reported the matter to the police, she said it was on 3 February 2024 at a different address, Stenson Road, Derby.

On 12 April 2024, there was a lease taken of the Stenson Road property and the applicant and the respondent moved in as well as the applicant's father. On 3 July 2024, a decree nisi was pronounced in the High Court in Nigeria. That was in proceedings which had been commenced by the applicant. It appears that they were never served on the respondent who was in complete ignorance of the decree nisi having been made.

Relations between the father of the applicant and the respondent steadily worsened. On 27 July 2024, the respondent says that he was assaulted by the father who he says is a much bigger man than himself. Then, in the period between 1 to 5 September 2024, the father demanded substantial sums of money from him in respect of the various outgoings. On 3 October 2024, the High Court in Nigeria pronounced the decree absolute. Again, that was not something that was served on the respondent. The applicant says that she did not know that that decree absolute had been granted, and I will come back to that.

On 29 October 2024, the applicant moved out of Stenson Road, Derby with the two children and went to an address which she has kept confidential. As I have said, the non-molestation application was issued on 6 November and granted ex parte on 7 November. In the meantime, the applicant had started proceedings in the Customary Court in Nigeria. This appears to deal with the financial arrangements for the divorce. On 22 January 2025, the Customary Court made an order for substituted service of the Customary Court summons on the respondent and then in February, the applicant says that the customary court made a decree absolute with a final ruling of the Customary Court made on 5 March 2025.

The applicant says that she suffered verbal, physical, psychological and emotional abuse by the respondent. I heard evidence on both sides but only from the applicant and the respondent. The applicant did not call on either of her parents to give evidence. Let me say it once that I prefer the evidence of the respondent to that of the applicant. It is right to say that the respondent was a somewhat unsatisfactory witness who gave long, rambling answers to questions and had a tendency to argue with Mr Soburrun. Nevertheless, his evidence did not suffer the grave defects which befell those of the applicant. My assessment of the witnesses is based on a holistic view of all the evidence but I will highlight the particularly significant points as well as others later in this judgment.

The applicant begun her evidence at page 43 of the electronic bundle in this way:

"The respondent, Mr David Dingba, and I are associated persons under section 62.3 of the Family Law Act 1996 because we are married and cohabiting and have children together."

That is not true. As I have set out in the chronology, she had obtained a decree absolute in Nigeria on 3 October 2024. At [13] of her witness statement, she says:

"In September 2024, the respondent unexpectedly stated he wanted to end our relationship. I complied with him as I could not tolerate his abusive behaviour. I attempted to remain amicable with him because of our children. Thereafter, we slept in different rooms."

Again, that is not true and I can only conclude that it is a deliberate lie since it was she obtained the decree nisi on 3 July 2024. In the witness box, she said she had only learnt that the decree absolute had been granted in February 2025 when she was sent a copy of that order. Again, I find this is untruthful. In a statement dated 9 December 2024 at page 50 of the bundle, she says:

"I am writing to formally express my concerns regarding the recent incident involving my ex-husband, David Dingba, and its impact on the safety and wellbeing of my children and their caregiver."

So, by December 2024, she knew that the decree absolute had gone through.

Also, significant in assessing the applicant's credibility is the incident on 2 February 2024. The respondent's account is at page 57 of the bundle. What he says is this:

"So, on 2 February, which was her birthday, she came in a little earlier than usual by 8pm. Earlier in the day, I had come downstairs to prepare the children for school and had encountered her mother in the kitchen. I greeted her mother three times and got no correspondent acknowledgment to my greetings so when the applicant returned that evening, she met me in the room and greeted me which I did not respond to and asked if I wanted to eat. She could prepare a meal for me. I did not answer her. She then asked why did the children not go to school that day. Initially, I refused to answer her and then told her if the kids did not go to school, the school headteacher would have called her to enquire about it. She told me that John had already told her they did not go to school and I kept quiet. I then went on to start getting ready to go to work because I intended to drive to work that day for the first time with the vehicle. After bathing and preparing, I carefully took my car keys, brought out my international passport, put my Nigerian international driver licences inside my international passport and made to leave the room. The applicant blocked the doorway and said I was not going anywhere until I answered her questions. I now kept quiet and ignored her. It was then the applicant unexpectedly attacked me. She punched me multiple times, grabbing the key through my hand, which I instinctively got back. Then, the applicant proceeded to hold on to my international passport, which had my driving licences inside. All this while her mother was there encouraging her. She attacked me in front of the kids and while dragging my international passport with me, she ended up pushing one of the kids who was not well onto the floor.

While this was going on, I called her father and briefly informed him that I was under attack from his daughter and the applicant's father said that his wife, Mrs Fidelia Anaekwe was encouraging the applicant to assault me. All through the assault neither Mrs Anaekwe or the applicant called their father, Mr Mathew Nzacky for help if they were under any threat from me. I turned and asked the mother why would she encourage her daughter to do what she could not do to her own husband. I also asked my wife why would she be doing what her mother would not even dare do to her father by attacking me and hitting me multiple times. She eventually ended up pushing me from the stairs and I hit the back of my head from four steps up from the floor. The very same place I had fallen that led to my stroke. And since then, I had my keys and the international driving licence, I scrambled out of the house leaving for work while she had the international passport and my bank card."

To note, the respondent had purchased a car using his earnings from the catering business. The stroke is reference to the incident on 14 September 2022.

The applicant's response to that is at page 112 of the bundle. There, she says:

"I did not block the doorway. I only picked up the car keys and asked him to answer my questions before he can leave for work as I had just got back home and needed a handover from him of what happened during the day. He started dragging the keys forcefully from my grasp and when he could not get it out, he placed his mouth over my clenched fist and started biting me so as to make me let go of the keys. In pain and without struggle, I pulled my arm back forcefully and the keys bruised his lips. Seeing the injury he has caused himself, he lashed out on me, punching my face and all over my body. I screamed for help. My mum left our kids downstairs watching television, came upstairs and jumped into the scene and asked me to give him the keys to avoid hurting, which he will not be able to explain as my father was not home at the time. I did as my mum instructed and he left the house.

A few minutes later he barged into the house, headed straight for our bedroom and came out with the folder filled with our documents to leave the house with it. Knowing how his mind works, I grabbed the folder from him as I did not feel comfortable having him leave the house with my international passport and that of our children, including all of my school documents. I immediately figured he wanted to keep our children and I stranded here as I was not working yet and depended on my documents to secure a job coupled with the fact, he already threatened to send our children back to Nigeria and dump them with his relatives to cater for. I did not push him in any way. In the process of the push and the pull while we were dragging the folder on the staircase, he lost his balance and fell over. I ran out of the house to ensure safety, holding the few documents I was able to retrieve and he came out yelling and cursing at that point. The neighbours were watching us. He threatened to call the police and I encouraged him to as there were witnesses around but I refused to be the one making that call.

Seeing that I was not frightened, he started blackmailing me to expose my father's immigration status and, in his words, he does not care as he has nothing to lose in this journey since it was never his finances involved. But I and my family would lose everything and be deported, which is his aim. I did not budge still as my dad was due to legalise, information David was not privy to, and on seeing that I was not perturbed about his threats, he called my father and briefly told him about the unrest in his house. In turn, my dad, unable to leave his workplace, called my sister's husband to come and keep the piece until David leaves the house."

It is worth noting a number of points. Firstly, the applicant made no mention of this incident in her initial statement. Yet, on her account, this was a concrete example of his physically assaulting her. Secondly, the applicant did report this incident to the police but the terms in which she reported it are at page 262 of the longer bundle. This was a notification by the police to the respondent saying that:

"A decision has been made in respect of the offences shown before:

(1)

Assault a person thereby occasioning them actual bodily harm on 3 February 2024. On 3 February 2024 at 362 Stenson Road, Derby, DE23 1HF, you assaulted Tessy Dingba thereby occasioning her actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against A Person Act 1961. After consideration of the evidence and other information that is currently available, the decision was that there is insufficient evidence to proceed."

In other words, the applicant gave the police the wrong date and place. The date was out by only one day but the 2 February is a significant date because it is her birthday. Further, giving the wrong address is suggestive of an invented account of events. The CPS decided that there was insufficient evidence to charge the respondent but I do not take that into account in my independent assessment of the evidence.

Thirdly, the photograph at page 123 of the shorter bundle does not, in my judgment, bear out the injury alleged to the hand. Fourthly, the respondent, as I have said, had a history of medical problems. I have seen both parties in the witness box. Physically, the applicant appears stronger than the respondent. Fifthly and lastly, I have heard no evidence from the father or the mother about this incident. Indeed, it is a general point about her case that she has adduced no evidence at all, not even a witness statement from these potential witnesses.

I turn then to the other allegations. At page 44 of the shorter bundle, in [6], the applicant says:

"My relationship with the respondent was initially manageable. Our relationship began to change around January 2024. The respondent started to have arguments with me over trivial matters."

The respondent accepts that the relationship started to break down in January of 2024 but he disputes the reasons. His case is that he was misled about the financing of the applicant's university course. It is common ground that the applicant's family had put 34 million Naira into a Nigerian bank account in order to provide proof of financing to the UK immigration authorities. The respondent's understanding, he says, was that the father was going to fund her studies. The applicant's more detailed account of the financing in statement 13 and 14 at page 111 of the shorter bundle is consistent with key elements of the funding not having been agreed. It is common ground that once the respondent arrived in the UK, the father required him to find work despite the respondent's medical problems. This, I find, did put a strain on the marriage but it does not appear to have been due to any fault on his part.

In [7] of her first witness statement at page 44 she says:

"The respondent was controlling. On the occasions that I went out, the respondent would incessantly call me and send me text messages. The respondent would want to know where I was, with whom and when I would return as such emotionally blackmailing me of neglecting our children. The respondent isolated me from my family, friends and wider support network due to the respondent's behaviour I stopped coming back home early to avoid arguments. Moreover, the respondent was paranoid. The respondent mentioned to someone he suspects I might be having an affair with my father. He would financially abuse me. He would control how I spent my money."

The applicant has not shown me any of the texts which she says are said to be controlling. As to isolation, I do not accept that. Her mother and father were living at Princes Street during this time and she had regular contact with her sister. As to financial abuse, it is common ground that money was tight and that an arrangement which they agreed to with friends for the payment of the university fees by instalments broke down because they could not pay their share. I do not accept that this was a result of the respondent abusing his financial power. He just did not have the £2,000 which was needed to contribute. There is no independent evidence that the respondent told somebody that the applicant was having an affair with her own father. It is an inherently improbable allegation and I do not accept it was said.

In [8], the applicant says:

"The respondent would be manipulative and would make me question my sanity. He would make me feel guilty and make me believe his behaviour was my fault. He would also manipulate my family and friends into thinking I was at fault."

These are generalised allegations. In the light of my general preference to the respondent's evidence over that of the applicant's, I do not find this proven. In [9], she says:

"The respondent verbally abused me when agitated. He called me derogatory names, such as worthless and useless. The respondent often commented on my physical appearance. He said, "you are barren." Moreover, the respondent was also emotionally abusive as he made me believe my perspective was wrong and his own was correct. In addition, he stated I was a horrible mother and I was not raising our children correctly due to the fact that I bought them chocolates and fed them with whole eggs individually."

The respondent agreed that he was concerned by the applicant feeding the children eggs. She said she sometimes fed them as many as three eggs each and the respondent considered that this was inappropriate. In my judgment, there was a genuine concern which the respondent had as to the applicant's feeding of eggs to the children and it was reasonable for him to raise the matter. I do not accept the other allegations made in this paragraph.

In [10], the applicant says:

"The respondent was also physically intimidating. He would often stand over me and shout close to my face. The respondent often pointed in my face and raised his fists at me. The respondent would slam doors and punch walls. This behaviour continued. I did not inform the police as I did not want to escalate the situation. I do not recall any specific incidents due to the frequency of abuse I received on a regular basis."

Again, I do not accept this. The respondent is not physically stronger than the applicant and as I have said, he suffers from medical problems.

In [11], the applicant says:

"The respondent on one occasion physically assaulted me in 2021. The respondent was intoxicated and stood on our children when they were 10 months old. I rushed and intervened to stop him. His behaviour escalated as he punched me in the face and kicked my body multiple times. I did not receive any bruises. I did not inform the police as I was fearful of what the respondent would do next."

Again, there is no evidence of this. For example, one would have expected there to be a complaint by the applicant to members of her family. It is also improbable that the applicant was punched to the face and kicked to the body and that that would leave no bruises. I do not accept her evidence in relation to this paragraph.

In [12], she says:

"Thereafter the respondent's behaviour was unpredictable as it fluctuated between fine behaviour and argumentative behaviour. He called me stupid and worthless. I did not inform the police as I did not want to escalate the situation. I do not recall any specific incidences due to the frequency of the abuse I received on a regular basis."

Again, this is unparticularised and again I do not accept that.

In [13], which I have said already, this is the respondent asking in September 2024 to end the relationship and I find that it is a deliberate untruth. [14] is just a repeat of [12]. It has clearly been cut and pasted from [12]. [15] to [19] say this:

"In October 2024, the respondent demanded me to give him our children's original passport documents. I told him I did not feel comfortable to give him the original documents. He became agitated and verbally abused me. However, I do not recall what he stated. In addition, he asked for his Nigerian national insurance documents and I told him where it was placed. Thereafter, the respondent did not carefully look for his documents and accused me of stealing them. His behaviour escalated and he called the police and immediately ended the call. Thereafter the police called him back and he stated his documents were missing. However, he did not blame it on me.

In October 2024, I could not tolerate the respondent's abusive behaviour and informed the police. The police stated they would invite him for an interview. Thereafter, I was informed the respondent went to the police before they had even invited him. He accused me of stealing our children's passport. The police officer called me and asked if they could question the respondent regarding my complaint and I told them yes. Thereafter, no further action was taken against the respondent and the police officer advised me to get a non-molestation order.

In October 2024, the respondent was agitated that I had informed the police about his abusive behaviour. In addition, he demanded me to withdraw my complaint. He threatened me as he stated that if I did not withdraw my report, I would complain to social services about me in order for our children to be taken away from me. I did not inform the police as I did not want to escalate the position."

The respondent's answer to this is at page 65 of the shorter bundle, where he says in [42]:

"While preparing towards my exit from the UK, on 2 October 2024, I discovered the applicant had taken away all of the children's passports from the bag where they had always been kept. I asked her where she kept them. She said she had taken them somewhere safe. I told her she could have at least have told me before going into my bag to collect them. I told her I would inform the police so they can adequately determine if it was legal and rightful for her to seize them knowing full well that UKVI required both parents' consent before travelling with them to the UK. I did place a call to the police but later hung up on the police. The police called me back and asked about the details of my complaints, which I told them. I later told the responding officer I would get in touch in the presence of the applicant. I told the applicant she had no right to solely decide to take away the children's passport from our residence, that I had equal rights as parents and that I should have equal access to our children's documents. I asked the applicant to return these documents to the house so I could access them for whatever purpose. She refused. Then, on 13 October 2024, I yet again discovered that their NIN certificates were missing, including mine from where it was usually kept in my bag. I again asked the applicant and she said she had all of them. I told her I will call the police, which I did, and they gave me an appointment for 15 October at 8:30 pm. I then called her pastor, Mrs Blessing Osochukwu in Nigeria and told her the trend of events and called her mentor, Mr Akamadu and told him the trend of events that I had told the police so that I do not have this constant conflict with her. Both of them said I had gone too far, that I should not have taken the matter to the police. Mr Akamadu then called the applicant and told her that I reported her to the police and I think that was when she also went to the police that morning to make a false allegation of assault against me."

In my judgment, it was disproportionate for the respondent to go to the police but equally, the applicant's behaviour in taking the children's passports and the respondent's Nigerian insurance certificate was wrong. In my judgment, this is an example of the parties' relationship breaking down. It is not one side harassing the other or vice versa. Much the same goes for the allegations at [19] and [21] of the applicant's first witness statement. There is nothing improper in my judgment in the respondent asking where his children were as alleged in [22] of her first witness statement. He had parental responsibility for the children and was entitled to know what had happened.

Accordingly, I find that none of the allegations of molestation alleged by the applicant are made out. In these circumstances, I discharge the non-molestation order made by DJ Pitman on 7 November 2024. I should say, I have determined this matter on the facts. The order would have stood to be discharged in any events on the basis of the gross breaches of the applicant's duties on an ex parte application. On such an application, the applicant owes a duty of full and frank disclosure. Here, I have outlined numerous breaches of that duty. In the event, however, I have determined the matter substantively.