Tag: Court

  • Court sentences two to death by hanging for armed robbery

    Court sentences two to death by hanging for armed robbery

    An Abeokuta High Court on Thursday sentenced two men  to death by hanging, and one other to 21 years in prison for armed robbery and attempted murder.

    The convicts, Wale Adedeji, Akeem Sulaimon, and Wahabi Idowu were found guilty and convicted on a four-count charge bordering on conspiracy, armed robbery and attempted murder

    Delivering his judgment, Justice Olugboyega Ogunfowora, said the court was convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons committed the offences as charged.

    Ogunfowora, having found that the accused persons were guilty as charged, convicted the trio to 14 years each on count one and two for conspiracy and armed robbery.

    He handed Idowu 21 years on count four and five for conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder.

    The judge subsequently sentenced Adedeji and Sulaimon to death by hanging while Idowu was convicted to 21 years imprisonment with hard labour.

    Read Also: Court to hear DSS suit on shadow govt against Utomi June 25

    Earlier, the Prosecuting Counsel, Mrs Bolariwa Adebowale, to the court that the convicts committed the offences on Oct. 29, 2018 at about 12:30 a.m., at No 40 Merroy Road, Safari Junction Onikolobo area in Abeokuta.

    Adebowale said the convicts, armed with knives and cutlass entered into the house of one Mr Rasheed Fajinmi, attempted to kill him and  robbed him of his Ford Jeep with registration number MUS 769FF.

    She added that the convict also carted away the complainant’s cloths, shoes, four mobile phones, two ATM cards, jewelries, 32 inches plasma Television and a cash sum of N64, 000.

    She further said that the convicts also robbed one Miss Boluwatife Fajinmi of her iPhone, 5x Nokia phone and wristwatches.

    According to the counsel, the offences contravened Section 21(b) and 1(1)(a)(5) of the Prohibition of forcible entry, occupation of landed properties, armed robbery kidnapping, cultism and other anti-violence  and related offences law 2016.

    She added that the offences also contravened the provisions of Section 324 and 320 of the Criminal Code, laws of Ogun 2006.

    (NAN)

  • Court sets June 5 for hearing in N32b fraud case against suspects

    Court sets June 5 for hearing in N32b fraud case against suspects

    Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa of the Federal High Court, Ikoyi, Lagos has scheduled June 5, to hear pending applications in a N32 billion fraud case brought by the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) against Victor Ukutt and Whoba Ugwunna Ogo, who is reportedly at large.

    The case involves the unlawful conversion of funds belonging to Woobs Resources Limited.

    The court fixed the date following a request by the prosecution counsel, E.T.C. Emezina, to allow time to respond to a challenge raised by the defendants.

    Read Also: Nigeria among Africa’s top investment destinations – Speaker Abbas

    At the resumed hearing of the matter yesterday, Emezina appeared for the prosecution, while Femi Falana (SAN), represented the first and third defendants, and Ayodele Akintunde (SAN) appeared for the second and third defendants.

    Emezina informed the court that there is a pending motion seeking to compel Ukutt’s appearance in the dock and urged the court to prioritise its hearing.

    Falana (SAN) however opposed the request, citing a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction to hear the charge.

  • Absent defendant stalls forgery trial

    Absent defendant stalls forgery trial

    Photojournalist assaulted in court

    The arraignment of two lawyers and a real estate developer was stalled yesterday at Lagos State High Court in Tafawa Balewa Square due to absence of one of the defendants, who took ill.

    Adebayo Akeju, partner at Adon Partners; Ademola Owolabi, managing partner of Ademola Adetokunbo & Co.; and real estate developer, Alex Ochonogor, are facing a five-count charge of conspiracy to commit forgery, forgery, and destruction of property.

    Director of Public Prosecution, Dr. Babajide Martins, appeared for the state. Dr. Abiodun Layonu represented the first defendant, A.A. Durojaiye for the second, and Tony Ejere, for the third defendant.

    Ejere said Ochonogor could not attend due to a medical emergency and requested an adjournment.

    Martins did not oppose, saying: “The defendant needs to be alive to stand trial.”

    Read Also: Senate summons NAFDAC over use of harmful chemicals to ripen fruits by traders in Nigeria

    Justice Serifat Sonaike granted the adjournment and ordered that Ochonogor must appear at the next hearing.

    A mild altercation occurred when a defendant allegedly assaulted The Guardian man, Ayodele Adeniran, who wanted to take his photograph.

    The journalist was dragged, and only released after showing his camera to prove that no pictures had been taken.

    The defendants, in the case filed by the state, allegedly conspired in 2015 to forge an affidavit of loss and a demolition notice, purportedly issued by Lagos State Lands Bureau, to falsely claim that a Certificate of Occupancy issued to one Hamza Al-Mustapha was missing.

    They also allegedly forged a memorandum of loss for the same document and willfully demolished a bungalow at Plot 10, Block 133, Lekki Peninsula Residential Scheme I said to belong to Dr. Obidigwe Eze, a Nigerian residing abroad.

  • IPOB: Court cautions defence team against delay in Kanu’s trial

    IPOB: Court cautions defence team against delay in Kanu’s trial

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has cautioned the defence’s legal team against delay in the conduct of its case in the ongoing terrorism trial of Nnamdi Kanu, the detained self-acclaimed leader of the proscribed separatist group, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).

    Justice James Omotosho issued the caution on Wednesday after Paul Erokoro (SAN), who conducted the defence’s case, suddenly requested for adjournment midway into his cross-examination of the second prosecution witness.

    In reaction to Erokoro’s request for adjournment, prosecuting lawyer Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) expressed discomfort and raised an objection.

    Awomolo reminded the court that it had, on the last date, chosen to allocate sufficient time for the defence to conclude with the second prosecution witness between May 21 and 22.

    He wondered why Erokoro suddenly became unwilling to continue with the witness.

    Erokoro, however, said he decided to ask for an adjournment because the defence plans to play some video recordings which were not immediately available in court.

    Ruling, Justice Omotosho agreed with Awomolo’s observation that the court, on May 14, chose to clear its schedule to enable the defence to conclude with the second prosecution witness.

    The judge, however, agreed to grant the adjournment, warning that the court will deem the defence to have closed its cross-examination of the witness should the defence team fail to conclude with the witness on May 22.

    Earlier, the lead defence lawyer, Kanu Agabi (SAN) and Awomolo SAN expressed concern about the conduct of a member of the defence’s legal team, Alloy Ejimakor, whom they accused of being behind the misrepresentation of court proceedings on his social media platforms.

    Agabi said he got a letter from the prosecution in which it expressed concerns about some publications made on social media. He then sought the court’s opinions on the issue.

    The judge pushed the issue back to him and sought his opinion, and Agabi responded by saying he would apologise to the court, even though he knew nothing about the publications.

    When asked to react, Awomolo confirmed that he wrote a letter on May 14 protesting the misrepresentations that were being published on social media.

    Awomolo said he learnt that the court’s proceedings on the case was being streamed live by some individuals, some of whom are lawyers. 

    The prosecuting lawyer noted that the case is a very sensitive one that should not be trivialised, adding that “it is not fair to manipulate what happened in court in the public domain.”

    While still addressing the court, Awomolo reached for his phone in a bid to draw the court’s attention to what he said Alloy Ejimakor was doing on social media.

    He handed the phone to Agabi, pointing to a recent post he said Ejimakor made on his social media platform.

    Agabi collected the phone from Awomolo and told that court that he had also read something about himself on the social media, misrepresenting happenings in the case.

    Reacting, Justice Omotosho said the developments do not benefit both sides, adding, “it will only delay proceedings. We should not lay emphasis on what is happening on social media.

    “Although one of our brothers has not been acting well. I have said it before, we should act professionally. 

    “Most of these things are gross misconduct for which you could be disbarred. It is misconduct. I don’t want to mention any names. The person knows himself. Let us act well,” Justice Omotosho said.

    Ejimakor, who is a member of the defence legal team, sat quietly in the courtroom as everyone spoke about his conduct.

    At the resumption of cross examination on Wednesday, the second prosecution witness said he did not know whether Radio Biafra has stopped broadcasting, but that Kanu confirmed being the founder of the station.

    The witness, an official of the DSS, said the agency was not being influenced by politicians or political oppontees, but that the agency is under the office of the National Security Adviser (NSA).

    He said he was not part of those who arrested Kanu in Kenya and rejected the suggestion by Erokoro that the DSS was involved in how the defendant was apprehended in Kenya.

    The witness, who said his agency does not engage in foreign operations, said it was not part of his brief to ascertain Kanu’s claim that he was kidnapped in Kenya.

    He said he knew Nigeria went through colonial rule, but did not read anywhere where Nigerians who called for independence were labelled terrorists.

    On whether he had ever heard of Odimegwu Ojukwu, the witness said Ojukwu was a member of the Nigerian Army who later decided to wage war against Nigeria.

    He said Biafra has never been a recognised entity anywhere in Nigeria.

    The witness said there was nothing wrong in people calling for change through peaceful means, but that Kanu resorted to calling for violence and killings in his broadcasts on Radio Biafra.

    He said he is not aware that the defendant called Simon Ekpa to stop what he was doing.

    On whether he is aware that courts in the country have held that the arrest and detention of the defendant is illegal, the witness said he read about them online and in the newspapers.

    Erokoro then tendered three judgments given in favour of Kanu by three courts, which the court admitted in evidence.

    The first was delivered on January 19, 2022, by the Umuahia division of the HIgh Court of Abia State; the second, delivered on October 26, 2022, by a Federal High Court in Umuahia and the third delivered on October 26, 2023, by a High Court of Enugu State.

    In the judgments, the courts faulted Kanu’s arrest and detention and the invasion of his home in Abia State by some soldiers.

    The witness said the DSS was only involved in Kanu’s arrest in Lagos, adding that the defendant called for the killing of security personnel.

    On Erokoro’s suggestion that Kanu’s call on his followers to kill security personnel who try to kill them was a self-defence strategy, the witness said he is not aware of any law in Nigeria that allows anybody to kill a fellow human being.

    He said he was not aware that the Director General of the DSS called on Nigerians to engage in self-defence.

    The witness said he was aware that former Defence Minister, General Theophilus Danjuma, once claimed that security personnel in the country were not neutral in the security challenge being experienced in the country.

    Further hearing resumes on May 22.

  • Court reverses lawyer’s conviction

    Court reverses lawyer’s conviction

    An Enugu State High Court has set aside the conviction and one-year jail sentence of a legal practitioner, Chidiebere F. Agbo, who was found guilty by a Magistrate Court of giving false information to the police.

    Justice Kenneth Okpe held that His Worship, D. K. Ekoh of Magistrate Court Grade 1 erred in law by relying on the prosecution’s evidence without considering the totality of evidence, including that of the defence.

    The judge also ordered the refund of the N25,000 fine earlier paid by the appellant as an option in place of the custodial sentence.

    Delivering judgment in the appeal marked NO: CM/824C/2017 and Eà/5CA/2021, Justice Okpe held:

    “The Prosecution did not prove the elements of giving false information beyond a reasonable doubt nor prove that there was an intent by the accused to give an information knowing it to be false.

    “The Honourable Court took the wrong view by relying solely on the evidence of the Prosecution rather than evaluating the totality of the evidence before the Court, including the evidence of the defence.”

    The Magistrate Court had on November 18, 2020, convicted Agbo on two counts and sentenced him to one year in prison on each count, with an option of N25,000 fine on each.

    The sentences were to run concurrently.

    Read Also: Can Nigeria First policy fire up sluggish manufacturing sector?

    Dissatisfied, Agbo filed a notice of appeal on two grounds: that the decision was erroneous in law and that it was unreasonable based on the evidence presented.

    With the court’s permission, he later filed an amended notice, introducing an additional ground, among others.

    The appeal was delayed due to a judicial strike, which affected the timely compilation of the record by the Magistrate Court Registrar. The High Court later granted leave to amend the appellant’s brief and extend the time for filing.

    Agbo, who held a Power of Attorney from Dr. Kevin Ochin regarding a parcel of land at Airport Road, Enugu, had deployed workers to the land, which led to a dispute.

    Then Enugu East Local Government Chairman, Prince Cornelius Nnaji, halted the workers’ activities, claiming the land was part of a community lease agreement dating back to 1976.

    Agbo subsequently petitioned the Commissioner of Police, accusing Nnaji of harassment and abuse of office. The police dismissed the allegations as unfounded and charged Agbo with giving false information.

    At the trial, the prosecution presented three witnesses, while the defence called five. He was convicted, prompting the appeal.

    Though the respondent’s counsel argued that one of the grounds of appeal was vague and that issues on sentencing were not raised in the lower court, Justice Okpe held otherwise.

    “The court erred in law in finding the Appellant guilty in all the counts of the charge even when the Prosecution did not prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt as required by law.”

    He further stated: “The view of this Court is that this is a valid ground of appeal and the law is trite that one valid ground of appeal can sustain an appeal.

    “This court will therefore resolve this issue in favour of the appellant. With this resolution, the conviction and sentences of the appellant are liable to be set aside.

    “But before I do that, let me determine the issue of whether the lower court was correct in its failure to take into consideration the provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Enugu State 2017 in the matter of sentencing.”

    Justice Okpe agreed with the appellant’s counsel that a custodial sentence was inappropriate for a non-violent offence.

    He cited relevant sections of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Enugu State 2017, including Sections 391, 392, 420, 455, 469, and 489, which provide for alternatives to imprisonment.

    In response to the respondent’s argument that the fine option constituted a non-custodial sentence, Justice Okpe clarified: “Let me correct a misconception by counsel for the respondent that the issue of sentence passed must have been canvassed and determined in the judgment before it can be raised as an issue on appeal.

    “It is not clear to this court the stage of the proceedings at the lower court when the issue of sentence will be canvassed.

    “This is because the sentence will be pronounced after allocutus, which is the last contribution by counsel for the accused person. And once a sentence is passed, the court becomes functus officio.”

    Concluding, Justice Okpe held: “Overall, I believe that the appeal is partially successful; therefore, the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court on the Appellant on November 18, 2020, are hereby set aside.

    “In their place, I enter a verdict of not guilty in Charge No. CME/824C/2017. Consequently, the accused, now Appellant, Chidiebere F. Agbo, is hereby discharged and acquitted. Finally, I order that any money paid by the Appellant as an option for his custodial sentences be refunded to him.”

  • Federal High Court redeploys judges

    Federal High Court redeploys judges

    The Chief Judge of the Federal High Court (FHC), Justice John Tsoho, yesterday announced the redeployment of some judges.

    In a statement by FHC’s Director of Information, Dr. Catherine Christopher, Justice Tsoho directed Justice M. G. Umar from Enugu Judicial Division to take over cases earlier presided over by Justice Inyang Ekwo of Court 5 in Abuja Division.

    “The Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, has effected the redeployment of some judges of the court.

    “The general public is hereby notified that all cases pending before Court Number 5 in the Abuja Judicial Division will be attended to by the judge who has been moved to Abuja for that purpose.

    “Consequently, there is no need for litigants and/or counsel to apply to the Chief Judge for re-assignment of cases that have been pending before the court,” the statement said.

    Justice Tijjani Garba Ringim from Gombe Division was transferred to the Yola Division, while Justice M. T. Segun-Bello from Abakaliki Division was moved to Enugu Division.

    Read Also: Court sentences four persons to death for murder in Ebonyi

    Also, Justice Bala Khalifa-Mohammed Usman from Yola Division was redeployed to Awka Division and Justice Amina Aliyu Mohammed from Awka Division transferred to Gombe Division.

    According to the statement, the redeployments take immediate effect.

    “The affected judges are to make their best endeavour to deliver all pending judgments in their current stations within the shortest possible time.

    “The judges currently resident in the Abakaliki and Katsina Judicial divisions shall take responsibility for all the cases already pending or newly instituted in their respective divisions, until otherwise instructed,” it added.

  • How ex-bank staff, others stole N5.7b from bank

    How ex-bank staff, others stole N5.7b from bank

    An Ikeja Special Offences Court yesterday heard how an ex-staff member of a second generation bank Olajide Ogunmoroti and his cohorts allegedly stole the sum of N5.726 billion belonging to the bank.

    A witness, Abdulmajeed Agboola, a staff member of the bank, who has had nine years working experience, gave the narration while giving evidence before Justice Olubunmi Abike-Fadipe.

    Led in evidence by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) prosecuting counsel, Abdulhamid L. Tukur, the witness told the court that the first defendant, Olajide Ogunmoroti, was an employee of the bank

     “My Lord, he was the ICT representative of Abakaliki branch,” he said.

     The witness told the court that there was a glitch in their bank server which they investigated and it was spotted at their branch in Abakiliki.

     “There was a fraudulent overdraft limits maintained on our customers’ accounts which enabled them to make withdrawals from the unfunded accounts.

    “We observed that suspicious overdraft maintained on customers’ accounts which allowed them to access funds and transferred to accounts maintained in both the bank and other banks.

     “We identified customers whose accounts benefitted from the suspicious overdraft maintenance with total exposure of over N5b,” he added.

     The witness also added that all their investigations led them to their branch in Abakaliki.

    “We checked the CCTV footage and discovered that everything was wiped then we noticed that something was wrong”.

    Read Also: APC governors: World Bank, IMF’s assessment vindicates Tinubu

     “During investigations, everything was pointing at the first defendant, which he admitted that he used  a private laptop in connecting with the bank’s server through which they gained access to the bank’s data”.

     Agboola told the court that the use of personal laptops was not allowed in the bank’s policy.

     The EFCC prosecuting counsel tendered in evidence the petitions from the bank which the first, second, third and forth defendants counsel did not object to.

    Tukur further prayed to the court for another date as he has other documents he needs to tender through the witness.

     Justice Fadipe adjourned to May 20, 2025 for continuation of trial.

  • Court to hear contempt proceedings in Lagos Central Mosque case July 2

    Court to hear contempt proceedings in Lagos Central Mosque case July 2

    Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa of the Federal High Court in Lagos has fixed July 2 for hearing in a committal motion against Alhaji Sikiru Alabi-Macfoy in the Lagos State Central Mosque leadership case.

    The suit, filed by the Registered Trustees of the Jamat-Ul-Muslimeen Council of Nigeria (Lagos Central Mosque), challenges Alabi-Macfoy’s appointment as Baba Adinni of Lagos and Chairman of the Executive Council.

    The plaintiffs contend that his appointment was made without the consultation or approval of the Chief Imam, the mosque’s spiritual head.

    The plaintiffs, represented by Dr. Kemi Pinheiro (SAN), filed a Form 49 – notice seeking committal proceedings against Alabi-Macfoy pursuant to Section 72 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act and the Judgment (Enforcement) Rules.

    Counsel to the first and second defendants, Adekunle Oyesanya (SAN), informed the court of their application to modify the interim orders previously granted.

    He argued that the enrolled order did not accurately reflect the court’s proceedings at the last sitting.

    Pinheiro objected, describing the application as “convoluted,” as it sought both a modification and a setting aside of the same order.

    He argued that the first defendant, having willfully disobeyed the court’s orders, should not be granted the right of audience.

    Pinheiro said the plaintiffs’ pending committal application against the first and second defendants should take precedence.

    He accused the first defendant of deliberately frustrating the fifth defendant’s efforts to comply with the court’s interim orders, which directed the fifth defendant, whose authority remains unchallenged to administer the mosque’s affairs pending the resolution of the suit.

    Oyesanya maintained that the enrolled order did not match the record of proceedings, justifying their request for modification.

    Read Also: Court rejects Lafarge’s bid to stop shares sales

    When the court asked if he was present during the issuance of the order, he confirmed he was.

    Justice Lewis-Allagoa then reiterated that the order was validly made and must be obeyed, stressing the court’s responsibility to enforce its directives.

    The court ruled that both the plaintiffs’ committal application and the defendants’ motion for modification would be heard together on July 2.

    At the heart of the conflict is Alabi-Macfoy’s controversial appointment, which has sparked sharp divisions within the mosque’s leadership.

    The plaintiffs argued that his installation as Baba Adinni is invalid as it has not been sanctioned or officiated by the Chief Imam through the traditional turbaning ceremony.

    They warned that the situation threatens to disrupt peace within the mosque community.

    The plaintiffs have urged the court to issue preservatory orders to avert potential chaos and preserve order.

    They argued that the court’s inherent powers allow it to take interim measures, even in the face of jurisdictional objections.

    However, counsel for Alabi-Macfoy and the second defendant opposed the application, insisting that the court lacked jurisdiction and cannot issue any orders until that challenge is resolved.

  • Lagos Court convicts 10 Thai sailors, vessel for cocaine traffickin

    Lagos Court convicts 10 Thai sailors, vessel for cocaine traffickin

    Justice Daniel Osiagor of the Federal High Court in Lagos on Thursday convicted ten Thai nationals for trafficking 32.9 kilograms of cocaine into Nigeria.

    The convicted individuals, all sailors, were found guilty alongside their vessel, MV Chayanee Naree, which was used to smuggle the illicit drug into the country.

    The convicted Thais’ sailors are: Krilerk Tanakhan; Boonlert Hansoongnern; Jakkarin Booncharoen; Thammarong Put-tlek; Worrapat Paopinta; Marut Kantaprom; Werapat Somboonying; Urkit Amsri; Panudet Jaisuk, and Amrat Thawom.

    The vessel and convicted sailors were first arraigned before the court alongside nine Nigerians, on the alleged offences in February 2022, by the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA).

    The Nigerians are: Samuel Messiah; Ishaya Maisamari; Ilesanmi Ayo Abbey; Osabeye Stephen; Gbenga Ogunfadeke; Kayode Buletiri; Rilwan Omotosho Liasu; Saidi Sule Alani, and Jamiu Adewale Yusuf.

    The vessel, the convicted sailors and the nine Nigerians were arrested on October 13, 2021, at Apapa, Lagos, on their arrival from Brazil.

    They were charged before the court on charges bordering on conspiracy, unlawful transportation and unlawful importation of 32.9 kilograms of Cocaine.

    Their illegal acts, according to the NDLEA, contravened sections 11 (b), 11(a) and 14 (b) of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act Cap N30 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. And punishable under the same Act.

    The convicted Thais and their Nigerian alleged co-conspirators were accused of committing the acts alongside the trio of Kehinde Enoch, Ayo Joseph and one Tunde, all said to be at large.

    The convicted sailors were prosecuted by the NDLEA prosecutors, who include; Mrs Theresa Asuquo, A. Adebayo and Paul Awogbuyi. While they were defended by their team of lawyers, who include Babajide Koku, Femi atoyebi and Tunde Adejuyigbe, who are Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN).

    Read Also: JUST IN: Appeal Court reserves judgments in Edo governorship dispute

    Upon conclusion of the NDLEA’s case, the convicted sailors opted for No-Case-Submission instead of opening their defence against the allegations against them. This was, however, contended by the prosecutors, who submitted that they had established a prima facie case against the vessel and its Crew.

    In deciding the No-Case-Submission, Justice Osiagor acceded to the submissions of the prosecution and held that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the vessel and its Crew members.

    The judge therefore ordered the convicted Thais and others to open their defence against the charges against them.

    Based on the court’s ruling, the convicted sailors entered a plea bargain agreement with the NDLEA.

    At the resumed hearing of the matter for judgment today, and based on the plea bargain agreement, Justice Osiagor ordered the vessel to pay a fine of $4 million USD or Naira equivalent.

    On the convicted sailors, the judge ordered the three Captains of the vessel, namely; Krilerk Tanakhan; Boonlert Hansoongnern; Jakkarin Booncharoen; to pay the sum of $50, 000, 00 USD. And that the other crew member to pay $30, 000, USD each. And that other convicted sailors are ordered to pay the sum of N100,000. 00, as a fine optio n.

    Meanwhile, the trial of the nine Nigerians has been adjourned to June 25.

  • Court sets July 2 for contempt hearing in Lagos Mosque Leadership dispute

    Court sets July 2 for contempt hearing in Lagos Mosque Leadership dispute

    Justice Lewis-Allagoa of the Federal High Court in Lagos has fixed July 2, 2025, to hear a motion for committal to prison against Alhaji (Chief) Sikiru Alabi-Macfoy, in connection with the ongoing dispute over the leadership of the Lagos State Central Mosque.

    The suit, filed by the Registered Trustees of the Jamat-Ul-Muslimeen Council of Nigeria (Lagos Central Mosque), challenges Alabi-Macfoy’s appointment as Baba Adinni of Lagos and Chairman of the Executive Council.

    The plaintiffs contend that his appointment was made without the consultation or approval of the Chief Imam, the mosque’s spiritual head.

    The Plaintiffs, represented by Dr. Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, filed a Form 49 notice seeking committal proceedings against Alabi-Macfoy pursuant to Section 72 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act and the Judgment (Enforcement) Rules.

    At the resumed hearing on Thursday, counsel to the 1st and 2nd defendants, Adekunle Oyesanya, SAN, informed the Court of their application to modify the interim orders previously granted.

    He argued that the enrolled order did not accurately reflect the Court’s proceedings at the last sitting.

    However, Prof. Pinheiro SAN strongly objected, describing the application as “convoluted,” as it sought both a modification and a setting aside of the same order.

    He further argued that the 1st defendant, having willfully disobeyed the Court’s orders, should not be granted the right of audience.

    Pinheiro emphasised that the Plaintiffs’ pending committal application against the 1st and 2nd defendants should take precedence.

    He accused the 1st defendant of deliberately frustrating the 5th defendant’s efforts to comply with the Court’s interim orders, which directed the 5th defendant, whose authority remains unchallenged, to administer the mosque’s affairs pending the resolution of the suit.

    Read Also: Oyo monarch to appear before court over death of six-month-old baby

    In response, Oyesanya SAN maintained that the enrolled order did not match the record of proceedings, justifying their request for modification.

    But when the Court asked if he was present during the issuance of the order, he confirmed he was.

    Justice Lewis-Allagoa then reiterated that the order was validly made and must be obeyed, stressing the Court’s responsibility to enforce its directives.

    The Court ruled that both the plaintiffs’ committal application and the defendants’ motion for modification would be heard together on July 2.

    At the heart of the conflict is Alabi-Macfoy’s controversial appointment, which has sparked sharp divisions within the mosque’s leadership.

    The Plaintiffs argued that his installation as Baba Adinni is invalid as it has not been sanctioned or officiated by the Chief Imam through the traditional turbaning ceremony.

    They further warned that the situation threatens to disrupt peace within the mosque community, particularly with the holy month of Ramadan approaching.

    The Plaintiffs have urged the Court to issue preservatory orders to avert potential chaos and preserve order during the sensitive pre-Ramadan period.

    They argued that the Court’s inherent powers allow it to take interim measures, even in the face of jurisdictional objections.

    However, counsel for Alabi-Macfoy and the 2nd defendant have opposed the application, insisting that the Court lacked jurisdiction and cannot issue any orders until that challenge is resolved.