A Lagos State High Court has dismissed a preliminary objection challenging its jurisdiction in the dispute over the Oloja of Lagos chieftaincy stool and directed all parties to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the substantive suit.
Justice Olalekan A. Oresanya delivered the ruling after rejecting the objection filed by the fifth defendant, Prince Babajide Rafiu Kosoko, which was supported by the first defendant, the Oba of Lagos, Oba Rilwan Akiolu.
The suit was instituted by Prince Surajudeen Abiodun Olojo-Kosoko, Head of the Akinsanya Olojo Ruling House; Prince Theophilus Olojo-Kosoko, General Secretary of the ruling house; and Prince Abiola Kosoko, who are suing for themselves and on behalf of the Akinsanya Olojo-Kosoko Ruling House.
Also joined as defendants are the Lagos State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, the Commissioner for Local Government, Chieftaincy Affairs and Rural Development, the Executive Chairman of Lagos Island Local Government, Prince Babajide Rafiu Kosoko, Mr. Muritala Olanrewaju Kosoko and Mr. Tunji Taiwo Kosoko.
Through their counsel, Olusegun Fabunmi (SAN), the claimants are challenging what they described as attempts to replace Prince Abiola Kosoko, whom they maintain was duly nominated by the Akinsanya Olojo Ruling House as its candidate for the Oloja of Lagos stool.
You May Like:HRW Slams Sowore For Attack On Female Cops
In the preliminary objection, counsel to the fifth defendant, Dayo Oshodi (SAN), argued that the dispute concerned the nomination, selection and installation of a traditional ruler—issues governed by customary law and the Lagos State Obas and Chiefs Law—which, he contended, were outside the jurisdiction of the court. He consequently urged the court to strike out the suit.
Opposing the application, the claimants argued that the case was not about the nomination process, insisting that the exercise had been concluded in 2020 with the emergence of the third claimant as the ruling house’s candidate. They contended that the dispute arose following a land-related disagreement, alleging that some of the defendants subsequently abandoned the earlier nomination and commenced steps to process the candidacy of other princes.
In his ruling, Justice Oresanya held that the claimants’ statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action deserving judicial consideration.
According to the judge, the issues raised could not be determined at the interlocutory stage and would require the court to receive evidence during a full trial.
He further held that where issues raised in a preliminary objection require the calling of evidence, they cease to be purely jurisdictional questions and are more appropriately resolved during the substantive hearing.
“I find no merit in the preliminary objection filed by the fifth defendant. The objection is overruled and the application is accordingly dismissed,” Justice Oresanya ruled.
On the claimants’ application for an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from recommending, selecting, nominating, appointing or installing any other person as Oloja of Lagos pending the determination of the suit, the court declined the request.
Justice Oresanya held that granting the injunction would amount to determining issues already placed before the court in the substantive suit, thereby prejudicing the defendants before the commencement of trial.
Instead, the court ordered all parties to maintain the *status quo ante bellum*—the state of affairs that existed before the events that culminated in the alleged nomination of the fifth and sixth defendants—pending the final determination of the case.
