Court declines motion to stop Kogi govt on Obaro of Kabba

A Kogi State high court sitting in Lokoja on Thursday declined an interlocutory injunction brought before it by the Ilajo clan to stop the state government from presenting the Staff of Office to the Obaro of Kabba, Oba Solomon Owoniyi.

The court presided over by Justice S O Otu, after rejecting the application of the Ilajo clan adjourned hearing on the suit to November 12.

The State government has earlier fixed the presentation of staff of office for Saturday, October 20.

The counsel to the Ilajo clan, Mr Lawal Rabana, SAN, has filed an application of interlocutory injunction to restrain the state government from carrying out the presentation ceremony.

He said the plaintiff had to file the application due to the nature of the case as the state government prepares to present the staff of office to the first defendant which was against the interest of his client.

But counsel to the defendant, Dayo Akinlaja SAN, argued that the case was not ripe for hearing, noting that according to the rules of the court, the defendants have seven days to respond to the application.

ALSO READ: Court remands 4 over alleged kidnap, killing of businessman

According to him, the application was filed on Tuesday, October 16 and served on him the same day, saying, the rules stated that they needed two days to study the application for response and it was mandatory for them to have the seven days that would give them enough time to file in their responses.

However, Rabana SAN said despite the rules of the court, the Judge still has his discretion to rule in his favour to hear the case.

The judge in his ruling said the court as an institution that should uphold justice based on fairness and truth could close its eyes on issues raised by the counsels to the defendants.

He said the rules were made to guide the court proceedings in order to give all parties fair hearing and opportunity to be heard, hence there is need to give rooms for the defendants to file in their responses within the stipulated time.

While declining the application, Otu ruled that the case is adjourned for the parties to file in their responses.

But the counsel to the defendants, who was not satisfied with the ruling also brought an oral application praying the court to restrain the state government not to perform the presentation ceremony on Saturday.

He noted that the rules of the court allowed oral application in the circumstance.

But the defendants’ counsels, said that plaintiff was trying to boycott the process, stressing that no oral application could be made since the case involved is not perishable in nature, urging the court to discard the argument and rule against the oral application.

Otu in his ruling against the application said it was an abuse of court process, noting that he had not determined his jurisdiction to entertain the case, hence he ruled against the oral application.