Oloja Chieftaincy Crisis: Court Orders Parties To Maintain Status Quo

A Lagos State High Court has ordered all parties involved in the long-standing dispute over the Oloja of Lagos chieftaincy stool to maintain the status quo pending the resolution of the substantive case.

It dismissed a preliminary objection challenging its jurisdiction.

Justice Olalekan Oresanya issued the orders after dismissing an objection filed by Nollywood veteran actor Prince Jide Kosoko, supported by the Oba of Lagos, Rilwan Akiolu, who argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit.

The suit was filed by Prince Surajudeen Abiodun Olojo-Kosoko, head of the Akinsanya Olojo Ruling House; Prince Theophilus Olojo-Kosoko, the ruling house’s general secretary; and Prince Abiola Olojo-Kosoko, acting on their own behalf and on behalf of the Akinsanya Olojo-Kosoko Ruling House.

The defendants include Oba Akiolu, 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 area, Prince Babajide Rafiu Kosoko; Muritala Kosoko and Tunji Kosoko.

The claimants, represented by their counsel Olusegun Fabunmi (SAN), contend that there are attempts to replace Prince Abiola Olojo-Kosoko, whom they assert was validly nominated by the Akinsanya Olojo Ruling House as its candidate for the Oloja of Lagos stool.

In his preliminary objection, counsel to the fifth defendant, Dayo Oshodi (SAN), argued that the dispute related to the nomination, selection, and installation of a traditional ruler under customary law and the Lagos State Obas and Chiefs Law, and thus fell outside the court’s jurisdiction.

He urged the court to dismiss the suit on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.

The claimants, however, argued that the nomination process was concluded in 2020, with Prince Abiola Olojo-Kosoko emerging as the candidate of the ruling house.

They also argued that the dispute arose only after a land conflict, with some defendants allegedly ignoring the earlier nomination and proceeding with the candidature of other princes.

Justice Oresanya found that the claimants’ statement of claim established a reasonable cause of action warranting judicial review.

He further held that issues requiring evidence could not be resolved at the interlocutory stage and should be decided during the substantive hearing.

In addition, the judge noted that when a preliminary objection involves matters requiring evidence, it ceases to be purely a jurisdictional issue and should be addressed at trial.

“I find no merit in the preliminary objection filed by the fifth defendant. The objection is overruled, and the application is accordingly dismissed,” the judge ruled.

Justice Oresanya also rejected the claimants’ request for an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from proposing, nominating, or installing any other person as Oloja of Lagos until the case is decided.

He explained that granting such an injunction would amount to preempting the substantive issues, thereby unfairly prejudicing the defendants.

Instead, the court ordered all parties to maintain status quo ante bellum—the position that existed before the events leading to the apparent nomination of the fifth and sixth defendants.