The Oyo High Court, sitting in Awe, has dismissed a case brought by Oyo kingmakers against Governor Seyi Makinde, the State Attorney General, and the Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Matters concerning the vacant Alaafin of Oyo stool, citing administrative defects.
The claimants in suit no HOY/14/2023, including the Bashorun of Oyo, High Chief Yusuf Layinka, Lagunna of Oyo, High Chief Wakeel Oyedepo, Akinniku of Oyo, High Chief Amusa Yusuf, Areago Bashorun, Chief Wahab Oyetunji, and the Alapo of Oyo, Chief Gbadebo Mufutau, sought a court injunction to restrain Governor Seyi Makinde and his agents from overruling their selected candidate for the vacant throne of the Alaafin of Oyo.
They argued that due diligence was followed in the selection and appointment process, duly conducted by the kingmakers of the Alaafin of Oyo Chieftaincy.
However, Justice Ladiran Akintola ruled on the Notice of Preliminary objection filed by the defendants, stating that there was no proof of service to notify the governor of the outcome of the kingmakers’ selection process.
The failure to serve the notice on the governor led to the dismissal of the case.
In the ruling, Justice Akintola stated, “This Court found merit in the Notice of Preliminary Objection filed by the Defendants/Applicants against the Claimants/Respondents in this case. The same succeeds; accordingly, all the issues raised for determination of this Court by the learned counsel on both sides are thereby resolved in favour of the Defendants/Applicants but against the Claimants/Respondents. Consequently, the suit initiated by the Claimants/Respondents in this case against the Defendants/Applicants is thereby struck out.”
Responding to the judgement, Kunle Sobaloju (SAN), the lead counsel to the claimants, disclosed that a Notice of Appeal and motion for injunction pending an appeal have been filed at the Court of Appeal and Oyo High Court, respectively.
He clarified that the ruling pertained to a preliminary objection filed by the defendants and emphasized that the merit of the case is yet to be considered.
Sobaloju stated, “Our response to that objection is to the effect that that duty is imposed by the law, that is, section 19 of the Chieftaincy law, on the Secretary to the Local government and not on the kingmakers, and we exhibited evidence that the kingmakers forwarded their decision to the Secretary of Atiba local government. We also argued that even if the issue is an issue of evidence, the governor can only prove whether he was served or not with proof of evidence. It is not the issue that the Court can determine by way of preliminary objection.”
