Banker Damilare Ajao jailed for false claims he was sexually harassed while wearing string vest
A council banker who “fabricated” false claims that she was sexually harassed by a manager while wearing a drawstring vest at work has been sent to prison and handed a £150,000 court bill.
Damilare Ajao worked in German financial giant Commerzbank’s customer lifecycle management team in London in 2019 before being dismissed in November of the same year.
He claimed he was harassed by a female manager who told him “in a flirtatious manner” that she could see his nipples and tried to touch his Gucci belt buckle in the staff canteen.
Ajao subsequently filed an Employment Tribunal claim against the bank, which included allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault against the manager, identified in court only as “Mrs Q”.
The allegations centered on allegations that the manager made a sexually explicit comment about the string vest he was wearing being visible under his shirt, and that the manager had to slap his hand when he reached for his specially designed belt.
But her claim was dismissed after trial judge Anthony Snelson found the allegations of sexual harassment and assault were “false and largely fabricated”.
The case then went to the High Court, where Mr Ajao was sentenced to 20 months in prison for “serious contempt of court” by Mr Justice Martin Spencer on Friday.
The judge also handed the estranged father-of-two, from Medway, Kent, a £150,000 bill for the bank’s lawyer’s costs in bringing the libel case.
The judge who made the decision said the allegations made in the employment tribunal, which he insisted on denying defamation, amounted to a “deliberate and malicious attack” on the manager’s professional standing.
The court has previously heard that Mr Ajao worked at the bank’s offices in Gresham Street, City of London, between May and November 2019, when he was sacked, and then presented his unsuccessful court case.
His complaints included that there was a sexual motivation in Ms Q’s dealings with him, and that he claimed he had become “irritated” by her rejecting sexual advances.
She claimed the manager told her “I like you” and told her several times over the course of several months that he could see her skin and nipples under her shirt.
He then filed a lawsuit for damages with the Labor Court; The bank described it as a “completely false allegation of sexual assault and harassment” against Ms Q.
Labor Judge Snelson dismissed his claim in April 2024, saying the allegations in Mr Ajao’s claim were “completely false” despite the mention of Mr Ajao’s vest.
The case brought Commerzbank’s bid to have Mr Ajao jailed for contempt of court over his rejected claims before the High Court earlier this year.
However, he denied the insult, claiming that his “perception” was that he was a victim of sexual harassment and assault and that he was not deliberately lying.
But the bank’s lawyer, Louis Browne KC, said this was neither in keeping with the way the case was heard in court nor the way in which evidence was given in the Supreme Court.
“ET was very clear in what she said in her allegations; there was no perception that she had been sexually harassed or assaulted,” he argued.
“His case was very clear: These events occurred and there was clear intent and motive behind them. He was given ample opportunity to backtrack on these allegations.”
But Mr. Ajao fought the case, denying contempt of court and saying that even though he ultimately lost the case, he truly believed what he said in court.
His lawyer, Sasha Wass KC, said the bank had based its defamation case on the basis that Mr Ajao’s accusations were “completely false” and that they were made knowingly.
However, he said there was an “evidence basis” for everything he said and the manager accepted in Ms Q’s statement that there had been a conversation – albeit innocent – about her drawstring vest.
Finding Mr Ajao in contempt of court, Mr Justice Martin Spencer said Ms Q had been “entirely honest and credible” in her evidence to the court.
He never said that he could see Mr. Ajao’s nipples, but he only talked to her in the context of friendly relations between people who sometimes talk about fashion.
But Mr Ajao’s evidence was false, he said, adding: “There were such inconsistencies, inconsistencies and impossibilities in his evidence that it was quite impossible to accept.
“The more I heard his evidence, the more I became certain that his evidence was untrue and deliberately so.”
Mr Ajao had said the comments and the alleged attempted sexual assault were the result of a pattern of behavior seen in the summer and autumn of 2019, but the judge said it was actually a “deliberate and malicious attack” on his professional reputation.
“If there had been an escalating campaign of sexual harassment by Ms Q… this would have made the allegation even more serious and given credence to her allegation that her conduct had the purpose or effect of violating her dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive environment,” he said.
“In my judgment, there was not the slightest grain of truth in any of the allegations made by the defendant against Ms Q. I am satisfied that the allegations were untrue and deliberately so, and that, combined with the lies told to this court, there was a deliberate attempt to deceive the court.”
The court heard Mr Ajao had lost his successful career in finance and now relied on Universal Credit, while his marriage had also failed and he now lived alone.
But the judge said the impact on Ms Q was “predictably serious”. He said he felt like a “criminal” and described the ordeal as “humiliating and painful”, resulting in him taking sleeping pills.
Mr Ajao had also attempted to cover up his failure to report the allegations at the time by saying he felt Ms Q was vulnerable at the time due to a family loss.
But the judge said it was a “cynical” attempt to “exploit real suffering”, part of a “fictional” set of allegations amounting to “serious contempt of court”.
Addressing Mr. Ajao, he continued: “Your lies were deliberate and sustained over a significant period of time and included the giving of false testimony under oath.
“They represented an attempt to mislead the court into awarding you significant compensation.
“The most important fact is that appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate detention.
“As a result, I sentence you to 20 months in prison.”
The judge said Mr Ajao would be eligible for early release on license after serving eight months in prison, but also ordered him to pay £150,000 towards the bank’s costs.
