The Court of Appeal in Akure, Ondo State, has directed all parties to suspend any action regarding the Akirun of Ikirun chieftaincy dispute pending the determination of the appeal before it.
The directive followed a Motion on Notice filed by Oba Yinusa Akadiri, the Akinrun of Ikirun, through his lawyer, N.O. Oke SAN.
Oba Akadiri informed the court about a letter allegedly written by Chief Kareem Adetoyese, the Eesa and Chairman of the Kingmakers, indicating that he acted on the instruction of the state governor by asking the Gboleru Ruling House to submit candidates for the stool.
The monarch also referred to an Osun State Government White Paper which stated that every issue relating to the Akirun chieftaincy dispute should remain suspended until the pending appeal before the Court of Appeal in Akure is resolved.
However, despite the directive, counsel to Oba Akadiri told the court that the Eesa had already invited the Gboleru Ruling House to commence the selection exercise as allegedly directed by Governor Adeleke.
The counsel therefore requested that the court compel all parties to preserve the status quo in line with the White Paper.
Lawyers representing the different parties in the appeal, including G.A. Adesina for the appellants, Gboleru Ruling House, and Bamidele Salami from the Office of the Attorney-General of Osun State, agreed that no further step should be taken until the appeal is decided.
Chief Sola Ebiseni, counsel to the kingmakers, also backed the application and stressed the importance of maintaining the status quo to ensure peace and justice within the community.
He explained that the appeal had initially been scheduled for hearing because all parties had filed their briefs, but the matter was postponed following an application seeking the substitution of deceased clients.
Delivering the ruling, the Presiding Judge, Justice S.O. Nwaka Gbagi, observed that despite the government White Paper directing parties to stop the nomination process for the Akirun of Ikirun stool, counsel to the 15th respondent informed the court that the 4th respondent was still requesting nominations.
This position was also affirmed by counsel to the appellant and other respondents.
Counsel to the 4th respondent, who was accused of initiating the process, denied being aware of the development.
Justice Gbagi stated that, “It is unfortunate that the 4th Respondent can go out of the Government’s directive in a matter that is pending before this Court.”
The court consequently ruled that, “It is hereby ordered that parties maintain status quo and avoid breakdown of peace and order.”
