Ekiti High Court again dismisses suit challenging Olosi Chieftaincy Declaration 2016

An Ekiti State High Court sitting in Ido-Ekiti on Monday, dismissed another suit filed by the Akombo and Alawe Ruling Houses challenging the Olosi of Osi-Ekiti Chieftaincy Declaration of 2016 by the Ekiti State Government.

The Declaration had restored the Arubiojo and Onifisin as Ruling Houses in line with the original 1957 Declaration.

The suit was filed in August 2020 by the two Houses claiming that the Declaration was fraudulently obtained.

This was after they had lost in the same court, their attempt to quash the inclusion of the Arubiojo and Onifisin as Ruling Houses by the state government in 2015.

The state government had raised preliminary objection to the new suit on four grounds, including being statute barred and abuse of court process since the case had already been decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction.

While delivering his ruling on the Preliminary objection, the Presiding Judge, Justice Ariyibi Apuwabi held that the claimants were statute barred, having filed their suit outside the period stipulated by the Public Officers Protection Law.

The court also, held that the suit was an abuse of court process on account of a similar suit having been filed in the same court and appealed against by the claimants against the same defendants.

He, therefore, sustained the objection of the defendants and consequently dismissed the suit.

Cumulatively,  the Akombo and Alawe Houses have lost three suits in their quest to eliminate two ruling houses to the throne of Olosi of Osi-Ekiti.

The first was the attempt to quash the decision of government to include the two Houses.

After five years of litigation, the case was decided in favour of Arubiojo and Onifisin Ruling Houses on the six issues raised.

The second was the appeal filed in respect of the court judgment, which they also lost, while in a unanimous judgment, the Court of Appeal sitting in Ado Ekiti, upheld the judgement of the lower court on all the six issues raised and dismissed the appeal as lacking merit and substance.

Exit mobile version