- #EndSars Protest: Who Has Taken The Voice Of Buhari?
- #EndSars protest: Akeredolu constitutes Ondo Judicial Panel
- Akure delegation visits Gov Makinde over mum's demise
- Infrastructural revolution earned Akeredolu victory —Akoko youths
- #EndSars protest turns into violence, jailbreak in Edo, Govt imposes curfew
By: Ade Adeleke
An Ondo state High Court sitting in Akure today directed the Deji of Akure Kingdom, Oba Aladetoyinbo Ogunlade Aladelusi, to pay a sum of #7,500 as fine for asking frivolous adjournments in the suit, seeking the court’s order to stop him from interfering in the chieftaincy affairs of Akure North Local Government Area including the appointment, installation or approval of the appointment of any minor Chief in Akure North Local Government Area of Ondo State.
The court presided over by Justice O. Akintan-Osadebay, awarded the cost of seven thousand, five hundred naira against the monarch after his lawyer, Mr Olusola Oke told the court that Oba Aladetoyinbo who supposed to open his defence and testify as a witness in the case, was indisposed to come for the sitting.
The claimants in the case number: AK/190/2012, are; HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS, OBA JOSEPH OLUWADARE AGUNBIADE (The Oloba of Obaile and Chairman, Akure North Local Government Chieftaincy Committee); HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS OBA AMOS FARUNKANMI (The Okiti of lju) as well as HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS OBA IDOWU FABORODE (The Ogbolu of lta-Ogbolu) (For themselves and other Recognize Akure North Local Government Area of Ondo State.
The defendants are; THE DEPUTY GOVERNOR, ONDO STATE (1st); THE MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND CHIEFTAINCY AFFAIRS (2nd); THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, ONDO STATE (3rd) and HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY, OBA ALADETOYINBO OGUNLADE ALADELUSI (ODUNDUN ll) DEJI OF AKURE (4th defendant)
Oke thereafter sought another adjournment of the suit to enable the Deji and his counsel to prepare for the defence of the case.
Opposing the request by the defence counsel, lawyer to the Claimants, Mr Femi Emmanuel-Emodamori who reminded the court of unnecessary delay tactics by the 4th defendant in the suit since the commencement of the case about eight years ago, demanded awarding of cost against the monarch in favour of the claimants.
Emodamori noted that the case had been adjourned several times after the claimants as well as 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants closed their case, while the 4th defendant had refused to open and closed his defence.
Replying, Oke agreed to pay a fine of #5000 but Justice Akintan-Osadebay awarded a cost of #7,500 against Oba Aladetoyinbo in favour of the claimants.
The judge warned that the case would be closed for adoption of written addressed if the Deji failed again to open and close his defence on the adjourned date.
The case has therefore been adjourned till 21st of July, 2020.
The claimants are seeking the court’s order, “A DECLARATION that the 4th Defendant (the Deji of Akure) has no authority whatsoever in law to interfere in the chieftaincy affairs of Akure North Local Government Area.
“A DECLARATION that the 4th Defendant is neither the prescribed, approved or consenting authority concerning the appointment of any recognized Chief or minor Chief in Akure North local Government Area.
“A DECLARATION that the Prescribed authorities for the appointment of minor Chiefs in Akure North Local Government Area including such matters as approval and installation of minor chiefs are the Recognized Chiefs in Akure North Local Government Area including the Claimants and the Alayede of Ayede Ogbese in respect of their respective domains.
“A PERPETUAL INJUNCTION retraining the 4th Defendant from further interfering in the Chieftaincy affairs of Akure North Local Government Area including the appointment, installation or approval of the appointment of any minor Chief in Akure North Local Government Area of Ondo State.
“A PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants from approving or recognizing the appointment of any minor chief in Akure North local government area of Ondo state purportedly made or that may be made by the 4th defendant.”