Justice Mobolaji Ojo of Ogun State High Court 4, sitting in Abeokuta, the Ogun State capital has described as ‘patently moribund’, an objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court on a suit filed against the Alake and Paramount Ruler of Egbaland, Oba Adedotun Aremu Gbadebo.
The Itoko Traditional Council of Chiefs, led by the Ashipa of Egbaland, Chief Adio Olatayo Sonekan had dragged the paramount ruler before the court over the conferment of Oluwo of Itoko title on one Chief Akanni Ogunboyejo.
Alake was joined in suit tagged AB/387/16 alongside three other Chiefs of Itoko.
The Paramount Ruler, through his Counsel, Barrister Benjamin Ogunmodede had filed a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the suit.
Alake argued that the suit was frivolous and amounted to abuse of court process; adding that he had not exercised his power as prescribed authority on the nomination of Ogunboyejo before the respondents approached the court.
He also added that the claimants also failed to make representation to the Commissioner for Chieftaincy Affairs as prescribed by the extant laws.
Citing Obiuweubi vs CBN, 2011 Ogunmodede further argued that internal remedies provided in the statute must be exhausted before party can have resource to court in a chieftaincy dispute.
In his argument, counsel to the respondents, Thomas Akintubuwa averred that the applicants based their arguments on erroneous grounds.
Citing Owoseni vs Faloye, 2005, the respondents said they only need to show that a dispute has arisen and that same has been referred to the Constituted Authority for decision.
Akintubuwa further argued that the claimants have fulfilled the requirements of the law before bringing the action to court.
Justice Ojo, while dismissing and overruling the application said all the numerous authorities cited by Ogunmodede in his address were not relevant or applicable to the present case.
He further said that all facts before the court are materially different from the factual situations in those authorities.
“I agree with the claimants counsel that the applicants’ counsel misapplied the law on this score.
“I am satisfied that the claimants did not infringe on any provisions of the Chiefs Law when they instituted this action on 17th November, 2016. There’s is no merit in this preliminary objection; this preliminary objection is patently moribund. It is hereby overruled and dismissed in its entirety,” the judge ruled.