Court’s nullification of Soun’s nomination (DETAILS), counsel faults judgement
Khalid ABRAHAM
There was a twist in the judgment relating to the suits challenging the nomination of Oba Ghandi Afolabi Olaoye as Soun of Ogbomosoland as an Oyo State High Court sitting in Ogbomoso, Wednesday, 25/10/2023 declared in suit no HOG/27/2023 between Prince Muhammed Kabir Olaoye V The Governor of Oyo State and 11 others that the procedure for the nomination of the Soun of Ogbomoso the 12th Defendant was “ irregular, null and void.’’ for not strictly complying with the provisions of the Soun Chieftaincy declaration of 1958
Contrarily, in suit no HOG/20/2023 instituted by Prince Taofeeq Akorede Olaoye also challenging Oba Olaoye in which judgment was delivered on October 3, Justice Kareem Adeyimika aAdedokun ruled that the procedure was “right, valid and proper.”
Advertisement
Justice K A. Adedokun, the presiding judge, delivering judgment in the suit marked HOG/27/ 2023 instituted by Prince Kabir Muhammed Olaoye faulted the procedure for the nomination of Oba Ghandi Olaoye and as a result granted the reliefs sought by the plaintiff, that the nomination be set aside while ordering a new process of nomination commence.
Reacting when contacted by ogbomosoinsightonline.com on phone, Kola Fatoye said the legal team of Oba Ghandi Olaoye would properly study the judgment in juxtaposition with the earlier one and make an informed opinion thereafter.
The counsel stated further that since the judgment is contrary to the earlier decision of the court based on similar facts which the judge said was delivered in error, it will be proper to look at the judgment with the provisions of the extant laws in order to decide the way forward.
He however did not rule out the possibility of challenging the judgement at the court of Appeal.
When pressed on the next line of action Fatoye declared, “Our position is that someone who said the procedure followed was correct has now reversed himself that he had not seen a past judgement relied on now and because of that ruled otherwise. It is clear there are contradictions in the two judgments because in one breath the learned judge said the procedure was right and in another breath said the procedure was wrong.
“Furthermore, we need to get the judgement to study it. In the first judgement in HOG/20/2022 he granted reliefs on our counterclaim but in this one based on the same fact, the same evidence, he now said no. There is therefore the need to critically assess the judgment.”
Another legal expert who however spoke under condition of anonymity submitted, “It shows how the man contradicts himself, the judge is confused. He said the process was valid and proper before. It is a conflict. He is the judge who had given the thing is in order before, it is the same type of case, you ruled against somebody saying this thing was in order and that the kingmakers and everyone did the right thing, but now you are saying otherwise, a judge is not supposed to rule against himself. In a similar case you now say the selection process is void.”
