The last is yet to be heard in the bitter love story between former President of the Nigerian Ship-owners Association (NISA), Chief Isaac Morakinyo Jolapamo, and his estranged wife, former Nigerian Television Authority (NTA) staff member, Olufunke Otti over the control of a luxury property in Ikoyi.
What began as a promising union between the two has now spiralled into one of Lagos’ most bitter property and financial disputes, complete with allegations of betrayal, demolition of a luxury property, missing vehicles and a fierce legal battle over hundreds of millions of naira.
The two, whose failed marriage has become the subject of an intense courtroom war over ownership of a luxury property in Parkview Estate, Ikoyi, Lagos, are still in a legal battle over the property in spite of the judgment delivered by Justice Olufolake Olufolashade Adewunmi-Oshin of the Lagos State High Court, on March 26, 2026, in favour of Jolapamo.
Now, months after that judgement, Jolapamo is pleading with the court not to grant his ex-wife’s request to halt the execution of the judgment pending appeal. He asserted that doing so would only deepen what he described as years of emotional, financial and psychological suffering.
In a strongly worded counter-affidavit filed before the Lagos State High Court, the retired shipping magnate painted a grim picture of his life since the collapse of the marriage and the commencement of the legal battle over the disputed property located at 23A and 23B Olusegun Aina Street, Parkview Estate, Ikoyi.
“I have effectively been rendered homeless,” Jolapamo told the court, adding that he currently lives in a hotel under financially and emotionally difficult conditions while still unable to enjoy the fruits of the judgment delivered in his favour.
The legal battle traces its roots to what appeared to be a happy union contracted in February 2017 at the Federal Marriage Registry in Ikoyi, Lagos.
But according to court documents, trouble started shortly after the marriage over proceeds from the sale of two vessels — M.T. MOR PROSPERITY and M.T. MOR POWER.
Jolapamo claimed that the proceeds from the sale of the vessels were entrusted to his wife for the purpose of securing their matrimonial future and acquiring family assets.
However, according to him, he later discovered that the luxury Ikoyi property allegedly purchased with the funds had been acquired solely in Otti’s name.
The development eventually led to Suit No. LD/3034LM/2022 before the Lagos State High Court, where Jolapamo sought declarations over ownership of the disputed property and accountability for proceeds allegedly tied to the vessel sales.
On March 26, 2026, Justice Olufolake Olufolashade Adewunmi-Oshin delivered judgment in favour of Jolapamo after what the businessman described as a full and exhaustive trial.
In the judgment, the court held that Jolapamo successfully established that the disputed Ikoyi property was acquired with proceeds from the sale of his vessels and declared the property a trust asset held for his benefit.
The court consequently restrained Otti and her companies from interfering with the ownership and possession of the property.
The court also ordered the defendants to refund over N410 million said to be outstanding from the vessel sale proceeds, remit N63 million generated as rental income from the property, and account for additional rents allegedly collected from the property.
General damages in the sum of N5 million were equally awarded against the defendants (Otti and her companies: CTSR Group Limited and CTS Properties Limited).
But dissatisfied with the judgment, Otti and her companies filed a notice of appeal alongside an application seeking stay of execution and injunction pending the determination of the appeal.
The application has now triggered another round of fierce legal confrontation between the former couple.
In his counter-affidavit opposing the stay application, Jolapamo argued that the defendants failed to place sufficient materials before the court to justify the extraordinary relief being sought.
According to him, the applicants merely relied on allegations of jurisdictional issues and fair hearing violations without showing any special circumstances warranting a stay of execution.