Efforts by Chief Kamil Dada, the deposed Regun of Ikorodu, to stop his removal by the Ayangbure of Ikorodu, Oba Kabir Shotobi, through the court has suffered a setback.
The former Regun was few months back removed from the Regun position by the monarch on the account of his inability to perform his role and obligations to the Ayangbure palace and its Council of Traditional Chiefs for more than two years and his absence from the palace without reasons or apologies.
His removal was supported by members of nine branches of his family who also alleged Chief Kameel of high handedness and having several irreconcilable differences, while another candidate, Mr Olusegun Shodipo, has since been installed by Oba Shotobi as the new Regun, on the request of the family.
Consequent to his dismissal, Chief Kameel Dada had approached the Ikorodu High Court to institute a case against Oba Shotobi in a frantic effort to seek reliefs for his dismissal.
However, the presiding Judge, Justice Pokanu, in his ruling on July 8,2022, refused to grant Kamil Dada’s relief on his removal on the ground that the act has already been completed.
In the court case with the Suit no: IKD/8738GCMW/2022, Chief Kameel Dada and Hon. Gbenga Oshin are the Claimants and are being represented by their counsel, Yemi Okewole Esq., while Oba Shotobi and one Alhaji Jamiu Alao Shittu are the first and second Defendants respectively and are being defended by Oshikoya and Co. Chamber.
In the Motion on Notice dated 20th of April, 2022, Chief Kameel Dada had prayed the court for the following reliefs:
1. An order of Interim injunction restraining the 1st Defendant; whether by himself, servants, agents, privies, or otherwise howsoever from removing the 1st Claimant as the Head of Regun family and Regun of Ikorodu, pending the determination of the suit.
2. An order of interim injunction restraining the 2nd Defendant from parading himself or holding himself out as the Head of Regun family of Ikorodu, pending the determination of this suit.
3. And such further or other order(s) as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.
In support of the application is a 34 paragraph affidavit dated 21st of April, 2022, deposed to by the 1st Claimant (Chief Kamil Dada).
Attached to the affidavit are six (6) exhibits: Exhibit US 1 – judgement of court of appeal in CA/L/111/2003, Exhibit US 2- copy of the statement on claim in suit No, IKD/595LMW/15, Exhibit US 3 – coy of Oriwu Sun tabloid for February 2022, Exhibit US 4 – petition dated 4th April, 2022, Exhibit US 5 – copy of 1st claimant’s Response dated 11th April, 2022 and Exhibit US 6 – copy of minutes of meeting held on 13th April, 2022.
Also, the claimants council, in his argument, submitted that going by the affidavit evidence, the claimants have satisfied the conditions for grant of an application for an order of interlocutory injunction, as espoused by Afe Babalola in his book : Oladejo vs Adeyemi (2000) 3 NWLR (Pt.60) and others.
The counsel further argued that the essence of the grant of interlocutory injunction is to protect the existing right of the Applicants in the suit from unlawful invasion by the defendants, adding that unless the court restrains the defendants and their agents, the claimants right would be violated; citing the case between Edosomwan vs Erebor (2001) 13 NWLR (Pt. 730) 265, to support his argument.
Meanwhile, in their defence, the defendants filed 11-paragraph Affidavit dated 10th May, 2022, which was deposed to by one Barr Awobajo Adeniran Ibrahim, a para-legal officer in the office of Olatunji Oshikoya & Co. (Counsel to the Defendant), and a written Address dated 9th May, 2022, respectively.
More so, their counsel argued that the court cannot grant the reliefs sought by the claimants in their motion on Notice dated 20th April, 2022, as the claimants in the said motion on Notice are seeking interim injunctive reliefs against the defendants. He argued that the said reliefs had been granted vide a Motion Exparte filed by the claimants in this suit.
He stated that by filing an application for reliefs already granted by the court in the same suit, it is obvious that the claimants ‘ Motion on Notice has no root in law and that the same is expressly forbidden by law. He submitted that abuse of court is not merely an irregularity that can be pardoned, but constitutes a fundamental defect which must lead to dismissal of the abusive process, therefore, he urged the court to dismiss the claimants’ Motion on Notice dated 20th April, 2022, with substantial cost.
Having listened to the arguments of the counsels for the parties and carefully considered the claimant’s Motion on Notice and the Notice of Preliminary Objection of the defendants, the Hon. Justice A.F. Pokanu, while ruling on relief 1 which is aimed at restraining the 1st defendant (Oba Shotobi) from removing the 1st claimant (Chief Kameel Dada) as the head of Regun family and Regun of Ikorodu, pending the determination of the suit and the argument of the claimant’s counsel on the said relief, said that it would be illogical and in congruent for the court to go further to grant relief 1 by restraining a completed act.
However, Justice Pokanu ruled that the claimants/applicants have satisfied all the conditions as to grant the injunctive reliefs and that the application has succeeded and thereby granted the order restraining the 2nd defendant (Alhaji Jamiu Alao Shittu) from parading himself as Head of Regun of Ikorodu, and also ordered the two parties to maintain status quo as recognized by the court in the Appeal Court Judgement, pending the determination of the suit.
Below is an excerpt from the Ruling:
“However, let me comment on relief 1 which is aimed at restraining the 1st Defendant from removing the 1st Claimant as the head of Regun Family and Regun of Ikorodu pending the determination of the suit. At hearing counsel to claimants, Yemi Okewoyo Eso directed this court it its records to the effect that the claimants filled from 49 showing that the 1st Defendant is taken steps to install another head. From the record of this court, I find that the claimant have pending a form 49 praying for an order of committal of the defendants to prison. The claimants clearly on the face of process that 1st defendant has on 20th May, 2022 purportedly remove the 1st claimant and announced one Adeniran Olusegun Shodipo as the new Regun of Ikorodu contrary to the Order of this court. Without going further, my finding at this point is that by the admission of the claimants, it will be illogical and incongruent for this court to go further to grant relief 1 by restraining a completed act, see: Lafferi Nig, Ltd. V, NAL Merchant Bank Plc (2002) 1 NWLR (Part 784) page 333 at 349 para F-H. in view of the establishment principled that a court can only grant reliefs sought or incidental thereto, I shall stop my brief at this point.
“I have held that the claimant/ Applicants have satisfied all the conditions as to grant of injunctive reliefs. Interlocutory injunction is concerned principally situations which an injunction is designed to combat is to arrest a fiat accompli which a respondent has attempted to foist on the circumstances of the case. See: Akapo v. Hakeem- Habeeb (Supra) at page 303-304. To begin with, the literal meaning of status quo ante bellum is the state of affairs before the beginning of hostilities. So the status quo dully recognized by the court of appeal in its judgement in Appeal No: CA/L/111/2003 delivered on 27th April, 2007 and recognized by this court via interim injunction on 27th of April, 2022 is that the 1st Claimant is the Head of Regun Family and the Regun of Ikorodu as at 27th of April, 2022. See: Akapo v. Hakeem- Habeeb (Supra) at page 303, paras F-H per Nnaemeka- Agu, J.S.C.; Thomson v. Park 11944) 1 K.B 408.
“This application, therefore, succeeds and I, hereby, order as follow;
1. AN ORDER of interlocutory injunction restraining the 2nd Defendant from parading himself or holding himself out as the Head of Regun Family of Ikorodu pending the final determination of this suit is hereby granted.
2. Parties are mandated to maintain status quo ante bellum pending the final determination of this suit i.e state of affairs duly recognized by the court in its judgementy in Appeal No: CA/L/111/2003 delivered on 27th April, 2007 and recognized by this court as at 27th of April, 2022 when this court gave injunctive orders restraining the Defendants.
3. The claimants shall enter an undertaking as to Damages within 7 days from today.
I so rule.”