Justice Akintunde Savage of a Lagos High Court sitting in Ikorodu has ordered parties in the obaship tussle of the ancient town to refrain from doing anything towards the vacant stool of the Ayangburen of Ikorodu. Justice Savage gave the order last week while ruling on an application filed by John Osighala, counsel to claimants in a suit filed before the court contesting the nomination of the Odofin of Ikorodu, Chief Kabiru Shotobi by the kingmakers, as the next Ayangburen of the town and after taking submissions of all counsels to parties in the suit.
The trial judge emphasized the need for parties to adhere to the order which he said was a test case in the on-going process adding that he does not expect anything to happen to the res (the stool of Ayangburen) before the next adjourned date.
Although, the court had fixed Thursday last week for the hearing of an application by persons seeking to be joined in the suit before proceeding into the substantive suit, it failed to do so because various defendants in the suit had filed different counter affidavits in response to the application by those asking to be joined.
When it became apparent that the matter would be adjourned again to allow Sulaiman Talabi, counsel to parties seeking to be joined, to respond to the various counter affidavits, Osighala applied to the court for an order for parties to maintain “status quo ante bellum” pending the next adjourned date in order to preserve the res (the stool of Ayangburen) which he said is the main issue in the substantive suit.” My lord, there are strong indications that third respondent (Chief Kabiru Shotobi) and 11th and 12th defendants, (the Lagos State Ministry of Local Government and the Attorney General), may do something to the res before the next adjourned date. If something happens, they have nothing to lose.
“I also see that the 11th and 12th defendants having filed counter affidavits can no longer be said to be neutral in the matter. So out of abundance of caution, I urged my lord to make a preservative order at this point on the res. If 11th and 12th defendants are the Attorney General and Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, they don’t have anything to lose. They should give us an undertaken that nothing would happen to the res. Having filed a counter affidavit, they have taken a position and can no longer be a mediator”. He said, arguing that the respondents have shown all indices that made an interim order inevitable.
Citing Supreme Court decision in Eresi versus Idika 1987 NWLR, part 503 and 512, Osighala argued that there was need to enhance the dignity of the court, emphasizing that it would be embarrassing to the court if by the adjourned date, a fundamental change had taken place and the res is affected by the change.
In his response, counsel to the 11th and 12th defendants, Mr. S.A. Quadri opposed the application and declined to sign an undertaken on behalf of his clients when the trial judge asked him to do so but promised that nothing would happen to res before the next adjourned date.
“I cannot give any undertaken because there is no justification for it. Making an oral application is an abuse of the court process. There is a ruling of the court dated February 5, 2015 which gave an interim injunction. That still subsists. I have appeared in several chieftaincy matters on behalf of the state, I never gave any undertaken”, he said, arguing that “the court does not act on assumptions. The court relies on concrete facts before taking a decision”.
Counsel to the second applicant, Kazeem Adebanjo aligned himself with the counsel to the other applicants. Adebanjo submitted that the refusal of Quadri to sign an undertaken that nothing would happen to the res before the next adjourned date reinforced the fear of the applicants.
“The position we are taking is consequential on the event of today (last Thursday) because what the court sought to achieve by its February 5, 2015 ruling has been overtaken by the joinders’ application”, he stated. He argued that there was no harm done to the court if a fresh order is given to protect the res.
Osighala also stated that the refusal of counsel to the state government to sign an undertaken was a pointer that” the res was in mortal danger. It is also an admission that there is destructible”.
Opposing him, Gbenga Hassan, the counsel to the first and third respondents, said the application of the claimants was baseless, insisting “the res in issue is indestructible.
“No sufficient reason has been adduced by the claimants to warrant the order he is asking for”, he said, adding that the ruling of February 5, 2015 has sufficiently addressed the issue the claimants are asking for.
Also opposing the application for maintenance of the status quo ante bellum, counsel to the fourth to the seventh respondents, O. Fabunmi said that the application of the claimants cannot be made orally. He also noted the refusal of the 11th and 12th respondents to sign an undertaken to preserve the res.
Fabunmi submitted that the court had already dispensed with the application of the claimants with the interlocutory injunction in the February 5, 2015 ruling of the court.
Delivering his ruling, Justice Savage noted the submission of the counsels to the applicants for the need to preserve there and the refusal of the counsel to the government to give an undertaken.
“Having heard all the counsels, I am of the firm belief that my order would be complied with by all parties on the preservation of the res and as in my February 5, 2015 injunction order”, he reiterated. On the application for joinders, none of the parties opposed the application of the parties seeking to be joined in the matter as their counsel, Talabi promised to serve parties his response to all the counter affidavits on the point of law.
Justice Savage further ordered all counsels to file their responses on the point of law and to serve all parties before the next adjourned date.
Earlier, a septuagenarian, Chief Babatunde Olusola Benson (SAN), who is an “amicus curiae” (friend of the court) and a prominent son of Ikorodu, had reported to the court that his intervention in the obaship tussle as instructed by the trial judge at its sitting of February 19, 2015, was yielding positive result. Chief Benson said some decisions were taken during the mediation and that all the counsels said they would report back to their clients adding that they would report back to the mediatory meeting fixed for last Thursday.
Justice Savage thanked Chief Benson for his efforts and urged him to continue playing the role aimed at securing settlement among the various factions of the Adegorushen branch of the Lasunwon Royal family of Ikorodu.
He thereafter adjourned the matter to March 18, 2015 for definite hearing of the application for joinders.
Messrs Mathew Adetayo Shodipo, Omobo Sokelu, Shakiru Shodipo, Nurudeen Fakomaya and Albert Aina had, for themselves and on behalf of the Lambo Branch of the Lasunwon ruling house of Ikorodu challenged the nomination of the Odofin of Ikorodu, Chief Kabiru Shotobi for the stool of the Ayangburen.
The first to 12th respondents in the suit are Ezekiel Shodipo, Tajudeen Odofin for themselves and on behalf of the Adegorushen branch of Lasunwon ruling house.
Other respondents include the Odofin, Chief Kabiru Shotobi; the Olisa and regent of Ikorodu, Chief Oludele Odusoga; Solomade of Ikorodu Chief Afolabi Adekayaoja; Apena of Ikorodu, Chief Karimu Ore; the Oponuwa, Chief Jacob Kolawole Adaraloye for themselves and the kingmakers of Ikorodu.
Other respondents are the Ikorodu Local Government; Ikorodu Division of Council of Obas and Chiefs; Secretary, Ikorodu Chieftaincy Committee; Lagos State Ministry Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs and Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice.
In their originating summon, which was supported by a 22 point affidavit and filed through their lawyer, John Osighala, the claimants asked for six issues to be determined by the court. They asked the court to determine “whether the consent judgment of a Lagos High Court, Ikorodu division in suit IKD/57/2007 (Mathew Adetayo Shodipo and others versus Ezekiel Shodipo and others) is subsisting and valid; whether parties and privies are bound by the aforesaid judgment until same is set aside on appeal; whether fourth to eighth respondents-kingmakers are bound by the aforesaid judgment being parties in suit no IKD/57/2007 and whether eighth and ninth respondents are not bound as well being parties/ privies thereon”.
They also prayed the court to determine “whether third defendant/respondent is not bound and stopped from being presented, nominated and selected as a candidate from Lasunwon Ruling House to any future chieftaincy title” and “whether indeed the Adegorushen Branch of the Lasunwon Royal Ruling House is not precluded by the decision in IKD/57/2007 from presenting a candidate for the now vacant title of Ayangburen of Ikorodu” The claimants also sought five reliefs which were hinged on the affirmation of the six issues raised before the court. They sought a declaration that the consent judgment of the Lagos High Court dated April 1, 2009 in suit IKD/57/2007 is subsisting, binding and in force; a declaration that by clause 2 of the consent judgment, the first, second and third respondents conceded the right to the claimants in future to the next chieftaincy title that is due and available to the Lasunwon Ruling House.
They also sought a declaration that the kingmakers, fourth to seventh respondents were bound by the decision in suit IKD/57/2007 as the seventh to tenth defendants and that they cannot now consider any candidate from the Adegorushen branch of the Lasunwon ruling house and a further declaration that the third respondent, having by the aforesaid judgment, been installed as Odofin of Ikorodu cannot in defiance of the judgment, present himself as a candidate for the vacant Ayangburen Royal Chieftaincy title “and he is thereby stopped from contesting any other vacant Chieftaincy title available to the Lasunwon family.
They therefore prayed the court for an injunction restraining the fifth to 10th respondents by themselves, agents, privies from considering the third respondent nor any candidate from the Adegorushen branch of the Lasunwon Chieftaincy family for the candidature of the vacant stool of Ayangburen of Ikorodu.
But in their counter affidavit to the originating summon, the deponent Prince Odofin Adegboyega Aliu, averred that contrary to paragraph 17 of the affidavit in support of the originating summon, the first to the third respondents and all other defendants are not in breach of the judgment in exhibit A, paragraph 2, the first to fourth defendants conceded the right to the next chieftaincy title to that is due and available to Lasunwon ruling house to the claimants and listed the titles available as Otunba of Ikorodu.
He said that contrary to paragraph 18 of the affidavit in support of the originating summon, the defendants ought not to be restrained as they have not breached the order of the court.
He said counsel to third to seventh defendants informed him that judgment in suit IKD/57/2007 relates to chieftaincy title and not an obaship stool or position; that a chieftaincy title is different from obaship stool or position and that the nomination/selection of the third defendant by the family and kingmakers was not a breach of the judgment in suit IKD/57/2007.
He urged the court to dismiss the claimants’ originating summon.
