JUSTICE O.S. Oloyede of Ogun State High Court sitting in Sagamu has nullified the installation of Olugbenga Somade as the Akufon of Idarika, Iperu Remo, Ogun State, declaring the process leading to his selection as illegal.
Justice Oloyede held that Somade must cease to present himself as the Akufon of Idarika, adding that all related documents, including the staff of office, certificate of office, and coronation ceremony for Somade, are nullified.
While describing Somade’s appointment and installation as “executive recklessness”, Justice Oloyede held that it was wrong for the government to have installed and conducted a coronation for Somade on 24 July 2024, despite being aware of the pendency of an application for an interlocutory injunction restraining such action.
The head of the lgundaniyan Ruling House, Pa Fasasi Ogunmuyiwa and Prince Moshood Onakoya, had in the suit filed against Somade’s installation on 24 May 2024 challenged the choice of Olugbenga Somade as the Akufon of Idarika, Iperu Remo, and prayed the court to stop the installation and declare Somade’s claim to the throne invalid.
The defendants in the suit include the Executive Council of Ogun State; Ogun State Attorney General and Commissioner of Justice, Sina Ogungbade (SAN); Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, Ganiyu Hamzat; and Ikenne Local Government.
The court further held that when the news filtered out that Somade would be crowned on 24 July 2024, the claimants filed an ex parte application for interlocutory injunction.
The judge said the application was heard on 23 July, while the claimants’ request to serve the motion on notice on Somade and others through substituted means was also granted, and the matter was adjourned to 1 August 2024.
He stated that notwithstanding the service of the motion for an interlocutory injunction on all the defendants, the state government disregarded the authority of the court by installing and coronating Somade.
Justice Oloyede held that the position of the law was that “Once a dispute has arisen between a person and a government or authority and the dispute has been brought before a court of law, thereby invoking judicial powers of the state, it is the duty of the government to allow the law to take its course or allow the legal and judicial process to run its full course.
“Accordingly, the approval of appointment, enthronement and coronation of the fifth defendant, Olugbenga Somade, as the Akufon of Idarika is hereby set aside for having been carried out during the pendency of an application for an interlocutory injunction in this case.
“Consequentially, the presentation of staff of office and certificate/instrument of appointment given to the fifth Defendant during the pendency of application for interlocutory injunction in this case is hereby set aside.”
“This application succeeds and is granted, effectively nullifying Somade’s appointment and ordering the return of all related documents.
“The essence of the claimants’ present application is to undo what the defendants did in flagrant disrespect to due process of law. Therefore, the parties to this case have to be restored to the status quo ante bellum by setting aside all the acts of the defendants aimed at this instant application for foisting on the honourable court a fait accompli and facing the court with a fait accompli.
“In the final analysis, this instant application succeeds and it is hereby granted. Accordingly, the approval of appointment, enthronement and coronation of the 5th defendant (Olugbenga Somade) as the Akufon of Idarika are hereby set aside for having been carried out during the pendency of an application for an interlocutory injunction in this case.
“Once a party is aware of a pending court process, and whether the court has not given a specific injunctive order, parties are bound to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the court process.
“That an Injunction cannot be granted to restrain a completed act. However, where the party sought to be restrained deliberately proceeds with the action intended to be restrained by an order of injunction after becoming aware of the pendency of an application before a court of competent jurisdiction as in the present case- such a party ought not to be allowed to profit from his misconduct and/or total disrespect to the court of law.”
Eighteen-Eleven Media