Dangote’s Ex-Girlfriend Asks Court To Dismiss Amended Petition, Insists Billionaire ‘Coerced’ Her To Sign Agreement
Autumn Spikes, the ex-girlfriend of Nigerian billionaire, Aliko Dangote, has approached a Florida court to seek dismissal of the business mogul’s amended petition against her.
In court papers seen by THE WHISTLER on Saturday, Ms Spikes claimed that Dangote “attempted to exert his power and control” over her by “coercing” her into signing a nondisclosure agreement barring her from bringing their romantic relationship that lasted for 10 years to the public.
Spikes, who filed the counter petition through her lawyers led by Paul Petruzzi, claimed that the billionaire had sought the nondisclosure agreement to “trade money for her silence” and “protect himself from the consequences of his own conduct”.
Dangote, who is the world’s richest black man and chief executive of West Africa’s largest conglomerate, Dangote Group, had recently approached the court to obtain a “gag order” stopping Ms Spikes from exposing his private life on social media as agreed in the terms of their contractual romantic relationship.
In his suit filed before the Miami-Dade County court, Dangote had accused Ms Spikes of libel, defamation, cyberstalking and breaching the terms of their contract.
The billionaire also accused Ms Spikes of trying to extort unmerited $5million from him, saying his business acumen had made him “a target for coercion” by his ex-girlfriend.
Dangote, in his suit tiled ‘Complaint petition for declaratory judgment complaint for extortion petition for injunctive relief’, had also asked the court to award him damages in “excess of $30,000” against his ex-girlfriend for breaching the terms of their agreement.
But Ms Spikes, in the counter petition she posted on her Instagram page (@allarounda1) on Saturday, claimed that she had made a counter offer after Dangote offered to pay her $2,500 per month to keep their romantic affair a secret.
“The Defendant, having sought legal counsel after being presented with the binding legal contract, authorized her attorney to engage in negotiations with Plaintiff’s counsel over the terms of the agreement. Defendant’s counsel made a counter offer to the terms in Plaintiff’s contract. See, Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint. Thereafter negotiations ended, and the Plaintiff filed the instant action against the Defendant,” read part of the counter petition filed by Ms Spikes.
She, therefore, asked the court to dismiss Dangote’s amended petition on the grounds that it, “is a hodgepodge of abolished and unrelated statutes, confusing admissions, accusations of anticipated harms, and incoherent assertions.”
Ms Spikes’ counter petition further reads: “At bottom though, the “Complaint” fails to state a cause of action. The Amended Complaint asserts count 1 — Petition for Declaratory Judgment, and count 2 — Claim against Defendant for Extortion Demands. While it recites the statutory provision of §836.05, the Amended Complaint does not allege any of the elements of extortion. Instead, the Plaintiff claims the Defendant is in violation of statutes abolishing actions for alienation of affection (Fla. Stat. §771.01 and §771.04).
“Rather than asserting the elements of extortion, Plaintiff writes that his claims are made pursuant to Fla. Stat. §784.0485 — Stalking; injunction; powers and duties of court and clerk; petition; notice and hearing; temporary injunction; issuance of injunction; statewide verification system; enforcement. Under section 784.0485, stalking includes cyberstalking. But the Amended Complaint seeks a declaratory judgment and monetary damages, not injunctive relief, and again, fails to allege any of the elements of cyberstalking.
“Additionally, the Amended Complaint fails to allege facts reflecting a justiciable controversy cognizable under the Declaratory Judgments Act. Specifically, Plaintiff fails to assert what rights, status, or other equitable or legal relationship exists that requires a judicial determination besides those covered by the statutory and common-law claims that he (attempts) to plead. Furthermore, the Plaintiff is asking the Court for affirmative relief outside the contemplation of the Act. The Court should decline to exercise its discretion to entertain Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory judgment.
“Instead of factual allegations of wrongdoing, the Amended Complaint does nothing more than repeat legal conclusions and assert incoherent theories of liability. It layers statutory definitions that are tangential at best to take up space where actual elements of causes of action would usually lie. The Amended Complaint fails to state any cause of action against which Ms. Spikes could reasonably defend. The motion to dismiss should be granted with prejudice.”
THE WHISTLER recalls that Dangote and Ms Spikes’ relationship was brought to the fore on January 1 when the billionaire’s ex-girlfriend posted a video clip on Instagram that showed her and Dangote on a couch.
The video went viral after Nigerians mistook a part of the billionaire’s body for his bare buttocks.