Ogun court rules against appointment of new monarch

Laide Raheem, Abeokuta

An Ogun State High Court sitting in Ipokia Judicial Division has ruled that there is no formal appointment of a recognised Oba-elect for the stool of Onipokia of Ipokia, which had been made by Ipokia kingmakers.

Justice Gboyega Ogunfowora gave the ruling while dismissing a preliminary objection by the Kingmakers of Ipokia Traditional Council of Chiefs in a trial on the chieftaincy tussle to elect a new Onipokia of Ipokia, in Ipokia Local Government Area of Ogun State.

The justice, who struck out the objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to adjudicate on the matter, described the preliminary objection as “frivolous and unmeritorious”.

Ipokia kingmakers had unanimously voted for US-based entertainment promoter Yisa Olaniyan, of the Iwaye-Dodo ruling house, as the new Onipokia.

However, the Asade-Adekanbi royal family, which includes Prince Adesola, Prince Adepegba and Princess Akinleye Alaba, had dragged the kingmakers to court for what it characterised as the wrongful selection of Olaniyan by alleged minority voting in violation of a 1956 declaration and the directive of the state government.

The claimants also claimed that Olaniyan was neither related to the Iwaye-Dodo ruling house nor a member of the Asade-Adekambi royal family whose turn it is next to produce the next Onipokia.

Meanwhile, the Traditional Council of Chiefs, led by the 7th Defendant, the Esemo of Ipokia, Fatai Agbeyemi, had raised a preliminary objection on the grounds that the Asade Family, in filing the suit, failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Chiefs Law of Ogun State, describing the action as hasty, premature and incompetent.

In his ruling on the matter, Justice Ogunfowora pointed out that “the pleadings in the case proved that no formal appointment of a recognised Chief had been made by the kingmakers and communicated to the appropriate authorities.”

The justice in his final analysis said “the preliminary objection of the 7th Defendant is dismissed as being frivolous and unmeritorious in the light of the above.”