By; BAYO AKAMO, Ibadan
An Oyo State High Court sitting in Ibadan on Friday asked parties in the suit filed by Otun Olubadan of Ibadan land, High Chief Lekan Balogun, and seven others, on the validity of a consent judgement given by the state high court on November 19, 2019, to narrow down their arguments
The Court in its ruling on the suit during the sitting tasked the parties to do this by filling further written addresses that will narrow down their arguments before the court.
Oyo State Chief Judge, Justice Munta Abimbola while giving
the ruling, stressed that there were some ambiguities in the many processes filed in the suit by the parties which necessitated the need for further clarifications of addresses necessary.
Justice Abimbola disclosed that the processes filed by parties in the matter when the case came before the court for determination on the validity of the consent judgement were many.
Cautioning counsels in the suit on the need to ensure their addresses stay focused on the law and not deviate from laid down principles of practice and points of law, Justice Abimbola frowned at the situation where lawyers now do analysis on the facts of a case before the court in public places.
The Chief Judge of Oyo state stated that it is not good practice that letters written by lawyers are flying about on social media on a matter that is pending before the court and that counsels should desist from such acts, saying as ministers in the court of justice, they are to calm tension.
Justice Abimbola further emphasized the need for the counsels to stop talking about issues before the court and desecrating the hallowed temple of the judiciary.
New Nigerian recalled that High Chief Lekan Balogun and seven others filed a suit against the Governor of Oyo State and five others, asking the court to determine whether the terms of settlement of consent judgement in suit m/317/ 2017 between Chief Rashidi Ladoja vs the Governor of Oyo State of November 19,2019, did not prejudice and negatively affect their interests.
The Ibadan High Chiefs also asked the court to determine whether the terms of settlement and consequent judgement in respect of vested legal interests of third parties has not been fraudulently and prejudicially divested them of their rights and interests vested in them to wear beaded crowns and coronet titles by virtue of Gazette No 14, Vol 42 of August 23, 2017; No 15, Vol 42 of August 24, 2017 and No 3, Vol 43 of March 2018.
In the suit, the High Chiefs asked the court to determine whether the consent judgement is not null and void, having fraudulently deprived the claimants who were not parties to the suit of their rights and interest vested in them by the gazette and whether it is not null and void, having been obtained by fraud and concealment of facts as well as to determine whether the terms of settlement is not irregular, fraudulent and deceptive, rendering the consent judgement a nullity.
The High Chiefs, then prayed the court for a declaration of court ordering that the consent judgement is not binding in law and enforceable against them who are not parties to the terms of settlement and suit and is consequently null and void as well as an injunction restraining government and its agencies from disturbing them from the enjoyment of the rights and privileges conferred on them by law and by virtue of various instruments purportedly set aside or annulled on account of the consent judgement.
Justice Abimbola disclosed that the processes filed by parties in the matter when the case came before the court for determination on the validity of the consent judgement were many.
Cautioning counsels in the suit on the need to ensure their addresses stay focused on the law and not deviate from laid down principles of practice and points of law, Justice Abimbola frowned at the situation where lawyers now do analysis on the facts of a case before the court in public places.
The Chief Judge of Oyo state stated that it is not good practice that letters written by lawyers are flying about on social media on a matter that is pending before the court and that counsels should desist from such acts, saying as ministers in the court of justice, they are to calm tension.
Justice Abimbola further emphasized the need for the counsels to stop talking about issues before the court and desecrating the hallowed temple of the judiciary.
New Nigerian recalled that High Chief Lekan Balogun and seven others filed a suit against the Governor of Oyo State and five others, asking the court to determine whether the terms of settlement of consent judgement in suit m/317/ 2017 between Chief Rashidi Ladoja vs the Governor of Oyo State of November 19,2019, did not prejudice and negatively affect their interests.
The Ibadan High Chiefs also asked the court to determine whether the terms of settlement and consequent judgement in respect of vested legal interests of third parties has not been fraudulently and prejudicially divested them of their rights and interests vested in them to wear beaded crowns and coronet titles by virtue of Gazette No 14, Vol 42 of August 23, 2017; No 15, Vol 42 of August 24, 2017 and No 3, Vol 43 of March 2018.
In the suit, the High Chiefs asked the court to determine whether the consent judgement is not null and void, having fraudulently deprived the claimants who were not parties to the suit of their rights and interest vested in them by the gazette and whether it is not null and void, having been obtained by fraud and concealment of facts as well as to determine whether the terms of settlement is not irregular, fraudulent and deceptive, rendering the consent judgement a nullity.
The High Chiefs, then prayed the court for a declaration of court ordering that the consent judgement is not binding in law and enforceable against them who are not parties to the terms of settlement and suit and is consequently null and void as well as an injunction restraining government and its agencies from disturbing them from the enjoyment of the rights and privileges conferred on them by law and by virtue of various instruments purportedly set aside or annulled on account of the consent judgement.
