Aliko Dangote has appealed to a U.S court to consider a preliminary gag order on his ex-friend, Autumn Spikes, who on social media exposes the secret affair between her and the business-magnate.

It was confirmed that the court in Miami-Dade County, Florida, has fixed February 9 for the hearing of the African richest man’s “petition for entry of the preliminary injunction.”

Dangote filed the ‘petition for entry of the preliminary injunction’, through his U.S. based lawyers on January 25, five days after he filed the libel suit on January 20.

He had recently sued Ms Spikes for allegedly trying to extort $5million from him, believing to obtain the ‘gag order’ to stop her from carrying out an alleged threat to expose his private and family life on social media and media talk shows.

The petition read “The plaintiff prays that the court enter order of preliminary injunction and order defendant Autumn Spikes to show cause why she should not be the subject of gag order.”

Mr Dangote’s lawyer, Bruce Fleisher, stated in the petition that defence lawyer, Paul Petruzzi, “has not agreed to accept service of process”, but “this complaint has been provided to him immediately upon filing”.

In the petition, Mr Dangote accused Ms Spikes of making “extortive demands” of $5million in the form of alimony.

He affirmed “There has never been a marital relationship or dependency relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.

“Nevertheless, the defendant has made extortive demands upon the plaintiff pursuant to Fla. Stat. 836.05 unless he provides her with money or support which he is not obligated to pay pursuant to Fla. Stat. 771.01 et. seq.

“Upon knowledge and belief, Autumn Spikes’ claim is that she will expose the defendant’s private life and family to talk shows and news media unless he complies with her demands.”

Also, “The plaintiff anticipates an onslaught of social media and/or talk show requests with the service of this action.

“The protection to which the plaintiff is entitled is a preliminary restraint before evidentiary hearing.”