Kogiflame
Kogi State High Court sitting in Lokoja, on Thursday ordered for the maintenance of status quo in the case of Ohinoyi of Ebiraland , Ahmed-Anaje, who was sacked on Feb.3.
Justice Umar Salisu of High Court VI, gave the order following an application for stay of execution on his earlier judgment that removed Anaje as Ohinoyi of Ebiraland.
Our Correspondent reports that the paramount ruler was removed by Justice Salisu in his judgment over a case filed by Daudu Adeku-Ojiah, Hussain Yusuf and Abdulrahaam Suberu, challenging the Ohinoyi’s appointment by the former gov. Yahaya Bello.
The State Attorney General, Muiz Abdullahi (SAN), and the Ohinoyi, who filed the application for stay of execution, had told the court that they have already filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal in Abuja.
Abdullahi, (SAN), who stood for gov. 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 Feb. 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.
Responding, Mr Sani Abbas, who represented the Claimants/Respondents, strongly objected to the application made.
In his ruling, Justice Salisu, said in view of the circumstance, 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 in affirmed that the court already stayed the execution of the earlier judgment of Feb. 3.
The judge quoted from page 22 of his judgment that “Since all the defendants have argued that there are still live issues pending before this Court and the Court of Appeal in relation to Suit No.HCO/12C/2006,it is therefore logical that all issues connected to these cases,the instant case inclusive should be preserved until the outcome of the case is determined either by this court or Court of Appeal with finality.”
The purport of this, according to the judge, is that the judgement of the Court already stayed itself and that even if the Claimant/Respondent should approach the court for enforcement of the judgement, same would not be granted. Hence, the res 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 make a declaration that the procedure adopted in appointing the 3rd Defendant to the throne of Ohinoyi of Ebiraland was wrongful, unlawful.
Reacting to the judgment , Gov. Ododo, the Attorney- General and the Ohinoyi, said they filed an appeal against the judgment before the appellate court challenging the decision of the court.
In their appeal, they sought the appellate court to allow the appeal and give an order setting aside the decision of the lower court.
They also prayed the court to dismiss the suit of the 1st to 3rd Respondents at the trial court for lacking in merit.
The appellants, however, claimed that the ruling in HCO/12c/2006 that is Exhibit 1, relied upon by the 1st to 3rd Respondents was an interlocutory ruling 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 added that the Learned Trial Judge erred in Law and reached a perverse decision when he placed heavy reliance on Exhibit P.O 4 annexed to an “Affidavit of Facts in Response to the 1s, 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 appleants said.
They further argued that the trial Judge erred in law and same occasioned a miscarriage of justice against the Appellant when he assumed jurisdiction to hear and determine this instant suit when in actual, he lacked jurisdiction.
“The judgment of the court was against the weight of evidence presented at the trial,’’ they said.
