A mother has been awarded an £11,000 payment from a Premier League footballer. She alleges the player assisted his brother in avoiding child support obligations for his two-year-old daughter.
The woman claims Chelsea player Tosin Adarabioyo supports his older brother, Fisayo, enabling an extravagant lifestyle. This allegedly includes funding a £2.9 million mansion, providing a monthly allowance, and a credit card for expenses.
Photos, reportedly obtained, showed the 30-year-old former professional footballer, Fisayo, with a £3,140 Bottega Veneta leather briefcase, suggesting a lavish lifestyle.
But despite this seemingly affluent lifestyle, Fisayo has reportedly made no child support payments for his two-year-old daughter, Anara. He allegedly informed the Child Maintenance Service that he lacks funds.
Anara`s mother, 41-year-old Nadia Messaoud, who dated Fisayo for a year before their 2022 separation, stated she was compelled to pursue legal action after her requests for support were ignored.
She initiated civil proceedings against Chelsea defender Tosin Adarabioyo, alleging he supported his brother despite being aware of the latter`s child maintenance responsibilities.
According to legal documents related to the civil case, which have been reviewed, it is stated: “The defendant (Tosin) has deliberately provided his older brother, Fisayo Adarabioyo, with undeclared income, not reported to HMRC or the child maintenance service.”
“This action was taken with the intent to hinder my daughter`s legal right to receive child maintenance.”
“For the past three years, my child has been assessed at a nil rate for child maintenance payments.”
Nadia further claimed that in addition to a monthly cash income amounting to thousands of pounds, Tosin also provides his brother with a credit card for expenses.
Land Registry records indicate that Tosin, aged 27 and reportedly earning £120,000 per week at Chelsea, owns the Cheshire mansion where Fisayo resides.
The Department for Work and Pensions has assessed the unemployed Fisayo at a “nil rate” for child support over the last three years, based on his claim of insufficient income.
Last month, Nadia organized a protest outside Chelsea`s Stamford Bridge stadium to bring attention to her situation.
She wore a vest top and carried a sign that read: “TOSIN #4 Women Matter, Children Matter, D.A (Domestic Abuse) survivors matter.”
Her efforts are supported by the domestic abuse charity Women’s Aid.
In 2022, Fisayo was convicted of harassment without violence. This followed an incident where he appeared at Nadia`s terraced home in Cheshire, banging on the door and causing her distress.
He also sent her numerous abusive texts, including hoping she would miscarry and threatening her life.
Following his alleged failure to respond to Nadia`s legal claim, Tosin Adarabioyo has been ordered by the court to pay her £11,000.
However, Tosin`s legal representatives informed that the court order was a “default judgment,” issued in error “by the court.”
Nadia stated: “I haven`t received any financial contribution from Fisayo for our daughter`s support, despite him living a footballer`s lifestyle, seemingly funded by his brother who plays for Chelsea.”
“I encountered resistance at every turn, which is why I chose to pursue legal action against both of them.”
“My sole aim was reasonable financial support, but Fisayo claimed he was poor. Now the truth is evident.”
“As a Premier League player, Tosin should set an example. However, his actions have effectively prevented my daughter from receiving the financial support legally due to her.”
Tosin`s lawyers` statement further added: “The order results from a default judgment entered by the court in a claim brought against our client by Nadia Messaoud (`the Claim`).
“Regrettably, it seems our client`s application to strike out the claim was not processed correctly by the court, leading to an automatic default judgment in favour of Ms. Messaoud.
“This represents a significant administrative failure by the court, which we are addressing on behalf of our client.
Furthermore, she applied for a default judgment inappropriately, considering she had been served with notification of our application.
“Your summary does not accurately reflect the events that have occurred in the court proceedings.”
They added that in addition to contacting the court for clarification, they have also filed an application on their client`s behalf “to have the default judgment order set aside.”
“In summary, the order you have seen is currently being actively challenged and, in our view, should never have been issued by the court in the first place.”
They described the claim as part of a “pattern of behaviour” by Ms. Messaoud aimed at “applying undue pressure on our client to provide her with additional funding.”
The statement concluded: “Our client has no relationship with Ms. Messaoud and owes her no legal or other duties or obligations.”
