Former Deputy Speaker of Ogun State House of Assembly, Mr Olugbenga Edwards Ayo-Odugbesan has asked an Ikeja High Court to restrain Agege Local Government, others from interfering with or disturbing their peaceable possession of their property situated at No. 47, old Ogba road, near M.K.O Abiola Market, Agege, Lagos.
They also want court to restrain the respondents from further demolishing their property.
The claimants, Edward Ayo-Odugbesan, Mrs Adefunmilayo Ayo-Odugbesan and Edwards Private School instituted the suit against Mr Kola Ganiyu Egunjobi, Agege Local Government and the Registrar of Title, Lagos State as first to third respondents.
However, at the resumed hearing, before Justice A. M Lawal, Dr. Kemi Pinheiro (SAN) announced appearance for claimant while Mr. Maruf Jimoh-Akogun appeared for the defendants.
Dr. Pinheiro (SAN) informed the court of his pending motion filed for interlocutory injunction.
He said his motion was brought pursuant to Orders 42 and 43 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2019 and under inherent jurisdiction of the court.
The senior lawyer said that the claimants filed an originating Motion Exparte dated October 3, 2024 seeking various injunctive reliefs pending the compliance with pre-action protocol.
He said that the court had on pre- emotive order on October 4, 2024, ordered the 1st and 2nd respondents to restrain from further demolishing or continuing to carry out any act of demolition over the whole or any part of the claimants’ property.
But the defendant counsel, Mr Jimoh Akogun told the court that the defendants have fully complied with the order of the court.
“The only thing is that, the claimant has gone to demolish. They came for pre-emptive preservative order. The court did not say they should enter the possession.”
The claimant is, therefore, seeking for an order of court for interlocutory injunction pending the hearing and final determination of this suit, restraining the respondents and their agents from demolishing or continuing to carry out any act of demolition of the property situate at No. 47, old Ogba Road, near M.K.O Abiola Market, Agege.
“An order of interlocutory injunction pending the hearing and final determination of this suit, restraining the respondents whether by themselves or through their agents, servants, privies or assigns, paramilitary officers, task force officers or otherwise howsoever described from further demolishing or continuing to carry out any act of demolition over the whole or any part of the Claimants’ property situate at No. 47, old Ogba Road, near M.K.O Abiola Market, Agege, Lagos State, more particularly described in Survey Plan No: SJA/483/92/L dated the 13th August, 1992 drawn by Mr. S.J. Anthony, Licensed Surveyor (hereinafter “the Property”) attached to the Deed of Assignment registered as No 63 at page 63 in Volume 1978 at the Lands Registry of Lagos State.”
They are also asking for “an order of the court restraining the respondents whether by themselves or through their agents, servants, privies or assigns, paramilitary officers, task force officers or otherwise howsoever described from further interfering with and/or disturbing the Claimants’ quiet enjoyment and peaceable possession, entering into or dealing with the land in any way or manner howsoever inconsistent with the Claimants’ proprietary rights over the land including but not limited to the right of egress and ingress, pending the hearing and final determination of this suit.
The claimants application was supported by 71 paragraphs affidavit deposed to by the second claimant ( Mrs Adefunmilayo Ayo-Odugbesan) and attached with the written address.
The claimants contend that the they have fulfilled all the conditions.Noted that evidence abound to establish the threat of the respondents, particularly the 1st respondent as to show that the res is in danger of irreversible alteration.
They submitted that it is also in evidence that third party interests may be created on the land if the court does not urgently intervene.
The claimant averred that, “As it has been demonstrated by the applicants, the applicants are under a justifiable trepidation or apprehension that unless the orders sought herein are granted and the respondents restrained, a serious mischief and the potential of causing an irreparable damage to the applicants property and their interest on same.
It has also been demonstrated by the affidavit evidence before the court.”
She stated that the applicants have been in possession of land since 1992 without any hindrance from any person to their peaceable and quiet enjoyment of same.
“ It has been shown by the affidavit evidence that, while the interest of the 1st and 2nd respondents to the subject matter remains in dispute, particularly with regards to the demolition notice, the respondents have continued to deal with the res in a manner adverse to the interest of the applicants in such a manner that any judgment which may be entered in favour of the applicants would be rendered nugatory.”
She therefore submitted that the court should still be disposed to the grant of an interlocutory injunction notwithstanding adequacy (if any) of damages.
The claimants noted that the rationale behind the submission, albeit novel, is that parties cannot be at liberty to take steps that will destroy the subject of litigation in blatant disregard of the powers of the Honorable Court to “unbiasedly” adjudicate on same. Once a Court of competent jurisdiction becomes seized of the facts of a case and proceeds to exercise jurisdiction thereto, parties are under the sacred obligation to halt every action pending the eventual determination of the rights of the parties.
“In the instant case, the applicants have demonstrated that pursuant to the orders of the court, the respondents are making frantic efforts to circumvent the order of injunction and continue to deal with the property in the manner that is inconsistent with the rights of the applicants.
“The justice which the instant application seeks to satisfy in this suit is simply sustenance of the subsisting orders of this Honourable Court and continuous preservation of the res pending the hearing and determination of this suit.”
The claimant urged the court court to grant the application stated that the applicants would suffer more if at the time judgment a fait accompli has been foist on the court by the continued acts of the respondents.
Justice Lawal has adjourned to January 14, 2025 for hearing.
The judge also directed that hearing notice be served on the third defendant in the suit.
