Justice Olajumoke Aiki of Court 10 of the Oyo State High Court sitting at Ring Road, Ibadan on Thursday sent back the case file of the ongoing matter filed by the Imperial Majesty, Olubadan of Ibadanland, Oba Saliu Adetunji, against the Oyo state governor, Senator Abiola Ajimobi, the state Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, the Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Matters, the eight elevated high chiefs and the 12 elevated Baales.
The suit among other reliefs asked the court to determine whether the recent reform following the report of the Justice O.A. Oyeboade panel and subsequent coronation of 21 Obas in Ibadan was legal.
According to Nigerian Tribune, Justice Aiki returned the case file to the Chief Judge following the application of Governor Abiola Ajimobi that the Chief Judge of the state, Justice Munta Abimbola, should transfer the ongoing suit to another court because the judge had shown her mind in her ruling delivered in a sister case.
Justice Aiki in a ruling at the end of the four hours sitting where counsels to the parties argued their matter held that when such an application is raised on a case, it is trite that the case is sent back to the Chief Judge for him to exercise his discretion and adjourned the matter sine dine.
“When there is such a letter asking that a case be transferred on various reasons adduced by a party, it is the norm for the court to tarry for the Chief judge to exercise his discretion whether to transfer the matter or not,” Justice Aiki ruled
The case was scheduled for ruling on three preliminary objections filed by the respondents on the jurisdiction of the court to hear the matter but when the case was called, counsel to the governor, the Attorney General and Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, Nurudeen Adegboye informed the court that there is a development.
He called the attention of the court to an application made via a letter dated January 30, 2018, to the Chief Judge of Oyo State asking that in view of the application for transfer of the matter, the court should await the decision of the Chief judge before taking any further step in the matter.
“In view of our application for transfer of the matter, I humbly pray the court to await the decision of the Chief Judge before any other step is taken in this matter. It is trite that justice is rooted in confidence. In view of the first defendant’s view in respect of the matter, I pray the court for an adjournment to await the Chief Judge’s decision. All other counsels have been served.
Part of the letter had stated that Justice Aiki is not competent to deliver the judgment objectively based on her ruling in another related matter.
In his reaction, counsel to the Olubadan, S.A. Ajewole, had stated that he doesn’t understand the application because the matter was slated for ruling on preliminary objections which had been strenuously argued before the court, adding that though he was served a copy of the letter, it had no bearing of activities of the court since it was addressed to the Chief Judge and not Court 10 and is nothing more than an administrative process.
“The intention of this letter is to arrest the ruling of the court by getting through the back door, what they cannot get through the front door. I do not know how a party will know the mind of the court. If the previous ruling is in their favour, will they write this letter? It is incumbent for the court to give ruling one way or the other; the court should ignore the letter as it was not addressed to it and give a ruling as scheduled. It is merely a letter, not an application,” Adewole stated.
In his response, Counsel to the fourth to the eleventh respondents, Abdulafeez Mohammad aligned with the governor’s counsel, adding that for the interest of justice to be seen as served, the court should await the decision of the Chief judge as the letter does not a constitute arrest of judgment and it is settled in law that there is only one high court in Oyo state irrespective of the number tagged on them and the matter is related to the one in which an earlier ruling had been given.
On his part, counsel to the 12th to 24th respondents, Kunle Sobaloju, also aligned with submissions by other respondent’s counsel, adding that the matter before the court is that whether in view of the request to the Chief Judge for transfer of the case, it will be in the interest of justice to proceed with delivery of ruling fixed for Thursday.
He concluded that it will not be prejudicial to any of the parties if the Chief judge is allowed to take a decision on the matter.
