Justice Olalekan Owolabi of an Oyo State High Court sitting in Iyaganku, Ibadan Judicial Division, on Monday gave an order, allowing the deposed Baale of Olode, Chief Lukman Alao and his counsel, Sikiru Sanni, to paste the court processes on the door of one of the defendants, Mr. Dauda Odeyemi in his residence at Ejo village, a distance of about 10km from Olode, as well as his family house at Kobomoje around Mapo in Ibadan.
The judge after ruling that the court orders be served on the fourth defendant through pasting on the door of his residential building as well as in his native village, adjourned the case to March 7, 2017, for further hearing.
At the last hearing, applications filed by the deposed Baale’s counsel could not be heard as the respondents were absent and the fourth defendant had not been served and the court had adjourned the matter to ensure that all the respondents were served before Monday
Though Sanni had informed the court that all the respondents have been served except Odeyemi, who was avoiding service by the court bailiff, the court held that granting any order then was premature but at the hearing on Monday, the court granted an order of substituted service by pasting on the residence of the fourth defendant.
Alao had filed a suit against Dauda Odeyemi, asking the court for an order of court restraining him from parading himself as the Baale of Olode and that his removal as Baale is illegal and consequently null and void among other such others.
Others joined as co-respondents in the suit alongside the Baale are the Olubadan of Ibadanland, Oba Saliu Adetunji, the Olubadan-in-Council and Oluyole Local government area.
It would be recalled that the Olubadan had on January 9, 2016 removed Alao as the Baale of Olode in Oluyole Local Government Area and immediately replaced him with Odeyemi.
The deposed Baale’s counsel had stated that his client is not bothered about other defendants but the new Baale who was said to have been installed, adding that the implications of pasting the processes is to let the fourth defendant have the knowledge of the court proceedings and that if he refuses to appear in court again, the case will proceed and there won’t be any basis to say there was lack of fair hearing.