Tag: Court

Otunba Adedokun Ajidagba has asserted that his headship of the Funsengbuwa Ruling House to produce the next Awujale of Ijebuland was backed by both the Court of Appeal  decision and family endorsements.

Addressing a press conference at his Ijebu-Ode residence last week Ajidagba dismissed Otunba Abdulateef Owoyemi’s endorsement at an event held recently at the Otunba Tunwase Museum, describing it as illegitimate and misleading.

He rejected the recent endorsement of Otunba Abdulateef Owoyemi as Olori-Ebi  of the Fusengbuwa ruling house.

According to him, the matter had already been settled by the Court of Appeal in Ibadan in 2024, following a legal proceeding that began with a 2018 judgment delivered by Justice A.O. Asenuga of the Ijebu-Ode High Court.

He presented court documents spanning 36 pages, showing himself, Owoyemi, and Prince Adeleke Adeyemi Olufadi as appellants in the case.

Ajidagba explained that the appellate court ruling favoured the Fusengbuwa family, after which he claimed Owoyemi resigned his position as Olori-Ebi.

He claimed that he subsequently emerged as Olori-Ebi with the endorsement of the late Awujale of Ijebuland, Oba Sikiru Kayode Adetona, and formal certification from the Ijebu-Ode Local Government.

Read Also: FG moves to settle part of ex-servicemen’s entitlements

“After the appellate court’s ruling, the late Awujale personally endorsed me, and I was issued a certificate of endorsement by the local government affirming my position. Since then, I have been functioning as Olori-Ebi of the Fusengbuwa family.

“It is shocking to see a video circulating on social media showing Owoyemi being endorsed by people who are not even members of our ruling house,” he said.

Ajidagba further stressed that the Fusengbuwa ruling house comprises eight units, which are; Osinuga, Adekenu, Olufadi, Adesimbo-Tunwase, Adebiyi, Adeberu, Shenowo, and Okuyendewo.

He alleged that those backing Owoyemi were outsiders, insisting that his rival had questionable ancestral ties to Ijebu-Ode.

“I am a true son of the soil. Someone from Idowa, with roots traced to Ikoro-Ekiti, cannot suddenly become Olori-Ebi in Ijebu-Ode,” he maintained.

He also recalled that during the 90th birthday celebration of Oba Adetona, he represented the Fusengbuwa ruling house among the four recognised ruling houses of Ijebu-Ode.

He described this as a further confirmation of his being the  legitimate head of the ruling house.

Supporting Ajidagba’s claims, Alhaji Taheeb Mabadeje Alaga, head of the Ogbagba/Anikilaya ruling house and chairman of the four ruling houses in Ijebu-Ode, affirmed that Ajidagba remained the only recognised Olori-Ebi of the Fusengbuwa family.

“If anyone claims to be from Fusengbuwa and is not under the leadership of Otunba Adedokun Ajidagba, such a person is an impostor. Those parading themselves have never participated in our family’s activities. Ajidagba is the only authentic Olori-Ebi of Fusengbuwa that I know,” Alaga stated.

Alaga concluded by appealing to members of the Fusengbuwa family to remain steadfast and resist attempts by outsiders to hijack the family’s structure.

• UBA initiates contempt proceedings

Justice Dehinde Dipeolu of the Federal High Court in Lagos has ordered the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), Polaris Bank Limited, and Archlight Nigeria Limited to refrain from taking any steps that could undermine the outcome of a pending suit filed by the United Bank for Africa (UBA).

The order, dated August 18, followed submissions by UBA’s counsel, Gbenga Akinde-Peters.

A. Olusola. Dr. Chika Agbu (SAN) and Babatunde Ogala (SAN) represented the first and third defendants.

Justice Dipeolu directed both the plaintiffs and defendants to “respect the judicial process patiently” and adjourned the matter to October 2 for hearing of the motion.

The court further restrained all parties from taking any steps that could render the pending applications nugatory.

Read Also: Why Tinubu’s administration introduced NELFUND – Information Minister

UBA has filed contempt proceedings against AMCON, some of its top executives, and directors of Archlight Nigeria Limited for allegedly flouting an earlier restraining order.

The bank is seeking the committal to prison of AMCON’s Managing Director/CEO, Mr. Gbenga Alade, and three executive directors — Mr. Lucky Adaghen, Mr. Adeshola Lamidi, and Dr. Aminu Mukhtar Dan’amu.

Also listed are Archlight and its directors, including Taiwo Afolabi, Mr. Tunde Afolabi, Mr. Rotimi Oyekan, and Mr. Deolu Ijose.

The contempt action, initiated under Form 48 of the Federal High Court Rules, warns the defendants of the consequences of disobeying a valid court order.

Court filings show that on May 27, 2025, UBA sought interlocutory orders restraining AMCON, Polaris Bank, and Archlight from selling or divesting Integrated Energy Distribution and Marketing Limited’s (IEDM) 60 percent equity in the Ibadan Electricity Distribution Company (IBEDC). The bank also requested a Mareva injunction to freeze all transactions concerning IBEDC’s controlling shares.

Despite the restraining order, UBA alleges that the respondents have continued to act in defiance of the court’s directive, prompting its move to initiate contempt proceedings.

Copies of the notice of consequence of disobedience (Form 48) have been issued for service on AMCON, its executives, and Archlight at their Lagos and Abuja offices, as well as on the named directors.

The Federal High Court in Lagos has dismissed a N10 million fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by two brothers, Mr. Chigozie Ubah and Tochukwu Ubah, against the police and their late brother’s wife.

The respondents are Inspection-General of Police (IGP); Commissioner of Police (FIB) Force Headquarters (Annex); Supol Dare; Supol Samuel; Inspector Ahmed Umar and the applicants’ late brother’s widow and mother of five, Ruth Kotsethomo Ubah.

Justice Yellim Bogoro dismissed the suit for lacking in merit.

The judge held: “From the counter affidavit of the sixth respondent, she stated she reported a case of conspiracy for stealing a Toyota Venza and Range Rover against the applicants.

“The police have a discretion whether or not to conduct an investigation into any allegation of crime made to them and once the discretion is properly executed the court will not interfere.

“It could be seen that from the evidence before the court in the discharge of their duty, the first to fifth respondents invited the applicants.

“While second applicant honoured the invitation some weeks after the invitation, the first applicant never honoured the invitation.

“It is the position that every person has a duty to report any semblance of crime unless it is done mala fide.

“The report of any criminal allegation will not constitute the instigation upon the police to act.

“I have not found any malice in the report made by the sixth respondent; she will therefore not be held liable for instigating to police against the applicants.

“Having considered the above, I have come to the conclusion that the police have statutory duty and power to accept, investigate complaint on allegation of crime against the applicants.

“The mere invitation by phone of the applicants and the interface with the second applicant will not amount to breach or threat to the breach of the applicants fundamental rights.

“I hold that the police acted within the ambit of the law when they invited the applicants for questioning based on the petition made against them.

“In all, I find that the applicants have not establish that their fundamental rights was violated as such I find against the applicants.

“The application has failed, same is dismissed because the case has failed the court cannot make any order for damages.”

The applicants through their lawyer, C. E. Amadi, in suit FHC/L/CS/1261/2024,  sought: “A declaration that the threat to arrest, detain and dehumanise the applicants, by the 1st respondents, their officers and lieutenants under the instigation of 6th respondent is unlawful and a gross violation of applicants’ rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement provided for under Section 35 and 41 respectively of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and Article 6 and 12 of African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap A9, Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 2004.

“A declaration that the intimidation, harassment and continuous threat with imprisonment of the applicants by the respondents in a purely civil matter constitutes a violation of applicants’ fundamental human rights.

“An order restraining the 1st -5th respondents, their officers and lieutenants from further intimidating, harassing, arresting and detaining the applicants in relation to the property of the deceased Mr. Chidozie Ubah, which is currently subject to an application for Letters of Administration, pending before the Lagos Probate Registry.

“An order restraining the 1st-5th respondents, their officers and lieutenants from further intimidating, harassing and arresting the applicants pending the hearing and determination of the suit.

Read Also: Presidency slams Daily Trust for ‘falsehoods, division,’ urges Nigerians to shun paper

“Compensatory general damages of N10 million, jointly and severally against the respondents for the unlawful violation of the applicants’ fundamental rights as entrenched and guaranteed under Chapter IV of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.”

The two applicants supported their suit with separate affidavits of 14 and 17 paragraphs respectively, written addresses, where they formulated three issues. And urged the court to grant all the reliefs sought against the respondents.

In response to the suit, the first to fifth respondents through their lawyer, filed a 15 paragraph counter affidavit deposed to by one Inspector Umar Mohammed, and urged the court to dismiss the applicants’ suit with substantial cost for lacking in merit.

The first to fifth respondents in the affidavit stated that their actions was based on the investigation in the case of threats to lives through abduction and kidnap of Ruth Kotsethomo Ubah and her children.

The deponent, while denying most of the applicants’ averments, also stated that the rights of the applicants or any of their relatives have not been violated, and that the court will not restrain police from carrying out its statutory functions.

In the same vein, the sixth respondent in the suit, Mrs. Ruth Kotsethomo Ubah, the widow of the applicants’ late brother, Chigozie Ubah, through her lawyer, A. A. Kilani, filed filed a 35 counter-affidavit, wherein she denied some of the allegations made against her by her brother-in-laws in their affidavits. And a written address attached with some documentary exhibits.

She equally formulated an issue for determination. The issue which was “Whether the 6th respondent’s actions are proper and thus not in breach of the applicants’ Fundamental Human Rights, is the submission of counsel that the respondents’ action particularly that of the 6th respondent is not a breach of the Fundamental Human Rights of the applicants. The applicants particularly only rushed to court to use the machinery of the Honourable Court to shield themselves from investigation and pervert the course of justice.”

Awards N5m damages

Justice S. A. Yelwa of the  National Industrial Court, Lagos has ordered the immediate reinstatement of a registered nurse, Thomas Abiodun Olamide who was unjustly dismissed from her appointment by the Ogun State College of Health Technology as a staff nurse in 2023 for her whistleblowing activities.

Justice Yelwa made the order on Thursday  while delivering judgment in the land-mark whistle blowing protection case.

Following her dismissal, Olamide through her lawyer, Timothy Adewale in Suit No: NICN/LA/125/2023 sued the College and the Ogun State Attorney General and prayed the court to declare her dismissal and termination as unjust, null and void.

She also asked the court to set aside her termination and dismissal.

In his judgment, Justice Yelwa declared that the termination of Olamide’s employment for her whistle blowing role is unlawful, unjust and unfair.

The judge ordered her immediate reinstatement to her employment.

The court also ordered the defendants to pay forthwith to Olamide all her outstanding salaries, allowances and entitlements due to her from the date of her suspension and subsequent termination up until the date of her reinstatement.

The court, in addition, ordered a compensation of N5million  to be paid to her as damages.

Olamide had during her employment, reported acts of stealing of quality drugs supplied to the clinic where she worked, stealing of the electricity generating set supplied to the clinic and also foiled attempts to cover a case of rape of a nursing student by a senior official of the college thereby leading to the official’s prosecution.

Her whistle blowing activities were seen by the college as lack of submission to constituted authority and thus her dismissal from the college.

In his judgment,  Justice Yelwa found Olamide to be a whistle blower who is entitled to protection against the acts of victimisation, harassment and intimidation by the defendants and that the termination of her appointment for whistle blowing activity is unfair and unequitable.

The trial judge said that the court would not fold its hands or close its eyes as a court of law and equity.

In his reaction, Timothy Adewale, who was lead counsel to Olamide  said: “We welcome this judgment wholeheartedly as it focuses attention on the need for whistle blowers to be protected by the Court.

“We thank Almighty God and we thank the court for not shying away from expanding and espousing the frontiers of our labour and employment law.

Read Also: Team Nigeria athletes complete gene testing for Tokyo Worlds

“Our law must move forward and meet the yearnings of the 21st century. Nigeria cannot be left behind.” Adewale noted that Nigeria has ratified many of the core ILO Conventions including the convention on the termination of Employment No 158 of 1982 which the court applied that requires utmost fairness on the part of the employer and commended the judge for the applications of these conventions, international best standards and the Acts establishing the court in arriving at this landmark decision.

Adewale said “this judgment is truly a watershed moment in the annals of history of the Nigerian labour and employment law where it is widely believed that an employer can hire and fire an employee for whatever reasons and that a civil servant not yet confirmed can be fired for whatever reason.

“A courageous and forward-looking Judge has shown today that the law must be equitably and justly applied to meet the yearnings of true justice.

“Society evolves and so must the law. The law cannot stand in one place”, he stated.

SignedTimothy Oreofe Adewale EsqManaging PartnerAdewale & Adewale Legal Practitioners28/08/2025Lagos, Nigeria Emails: 08067585511, 08062733643.