The Kogi State High Court in Lakota has ordered the status quo to be maintained in the case of Ohinoyi of Ebiraland Ahmed-Anaje, who was sacked on February 3.
Justice Umar Salisu of High Court VI made the order on Wednesday following an application for a stay of execution on his earlier judgment, which removed Anaje as Ohinoyi of Ebiraland.
Our Correspondent gathered that Justice Salisu removed the paramount ruler in his judgment over a case filed by Daudu Adeku-Ojiah, Hussain Yusuf, and Abdulrahaam Suberu challenging the Ohinoyi’s appointment by the former governor, Yahaya Bello.
The State Attorney General, Muiz Abdullahi (SAN), and the Ohinoyi, who applied for a stay of execution, had told the court that they had already filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal in Abuja.
Abdullahi (SAN), who stood for Governor Ododo, 1st and 2nd Defendants/Applicants, while Z.E. Abbas Esq. stood for Ohinoyi, 3rd Defendant/Applicant.
“We prayed the court to grant an order for staying execution of the judgment of this honourable Court (Coram: Hon.Justice Salisu Umar, Court (6) delivered on Feb. 3, in Suit No HCO/05C/2024, pending the determination of the appeal lodged to the Court of Appeal on February 4.
“We also prayed for any such orders or other orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of the application,’’ they pleaded.
Mr Sani Abbas, who represented the Claimants/Respondents, did not object to the application.
In his ruling, Justice Salisu said given the circumstances, he granted the application and ordered that the status quo remains pending the determination of the appeal filed before the court of appeal.
The Judge affirmed that the court had already stayed the execution of the earlier judgment of February 3.
The judge quoted from page 22 of his judgment, “Since all the defendants have argued that there are still live issues pending before this Court and the Court of Appeal to Suit No HCO/12C/2006, it is logical that all issues connected to these cases, the instant case inclusive, should be preserved until the case outcome is determined by this court or Court of Appeal with finality.”
According to the judge, this means that the court’s judgement has already been stayed and that even if the Claimant/Respondent approached the court to enforce the judgment, the same would not be granted. Hence, the rest in the instant case is preserved.
It would be recalled that Justice Salisu had sacked the Ohinoyi of Ebiraland, Alhaji Tijani Ahmed-Anaje, in a judgment he delivered on Feb 3. In Lokoja, with a charge to Ahmed-Anaje, stop parading himself as the Ohinoyi of Ebiraland.
Represented by Mr Lawal Rabana (SAN), the plaintiffs/Respondents had pleaded with the court to declare that the procedure adopted in appointing the third Defendant to the throne of Ohinoyi of Ebiraland was wrongful and unlawful.
Reacting to the judgment, Gov Ododo, the Attorney General, and the Ohinoyi said they filed an appeal against the verdict before the appellate court, challenging the court’s decision.
In their appeal, they sought the appellate court to allow the appeal and give an order setting aside the lower court’s decision.
They also prayed the court to dismiss the suit of the 1st to 3rd Respondents at the trial court because it lacked merit.
The appellants, however, claimed that the ruling in HCO/12c/2006, which is Exhibit 1, relied upon by the 1st to 3rd Respondents, was interlocutory in respect of processing, nomination, selection, and appointment of some set of persons at the time as Ohis to the five districts of Okengwe/Okene, Eia, Lhima, Adavi, and Eganyi.
The Learned Trial Judge erred in Law and reached a perverse decision when he heavily relied on Exhibit P.O. 4, annexed to an “Affidavit of Facts in Response to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Defendants Notice of Preliminary Objection.”
“The Learned Trial Court erred in law and reached a perverse decision to the detriment of the Appellants when it relied on an interlocutory decision in suit no: HCO/12c/2006 between Dr Habibu Angulu Sani v the Kogi Govt & 5 Ors,’’ the appellants said.
They further argued that the trial Judge erred in law and occasioned a miscarriage of justice against the Appellant when he assumed jurisdiction to hear and determine this instant suit when, in actuality, he lacked jurisdiction.
“The court’s judgment was against the weight of evidence presented at the trial,’’ they said.
