Ile Arugbo: Saraki’s Lawyer Rebuts “Falsehood” Allegations, Says Kwara Govt Lawyer Lost Memory of Pending Case
By Omowumi Omotosho
In a twist to the ongoing legal battle between Kwara state government and the family of late Olusola Saraki over “Ile-Arugbo”, Counsel to the Saraki family, AbulAzeez Ayodeji Ibraheem Esq has refuted claims made by the legal counsel of Kwara government, Ayinla Salman Jawando SAN, regarding a pending case before the Chief Judge of Kwara State, Justice A.A. Adebara.
National pilot recalls that the Kwara State government, represented by its legal counsel Barrister Ayinla Salman Jawando SAN, has called on the State Police Command to dismiss a petition filed by the counsel for the late Abubakar Olusola Saraki. The petition accuses the state government of contempt of court concerning the ongoing Ile-Arugbo land dispute.
In a formal response titled “RE: ALLEGED VIOLATION OF A PURPORTED COURT ORDER IN SUIT NO: KWS/112/2022; ASA INVESTMENT LIMITED & ANOR. V. GOVERNOR OF KWARA STATE & 4 ORS.,” Jawando emphasized the temporary nature of ex-parte orders, which last for a maximum of 14 days.
Jawando elaborated on the legal basis for this time limit, stating, “By the Rules of the Court and as settled by plethora of Decisions of our Courts, the life span of an Ex-Parte Order is a maximum of fourteen (14) days.”
He referenced specific legal provisions and past court decisions to support his argument, citing “Order 11 Rule 11 (1) & (2) of the Kwara State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2021 and 2022 and the cases of TITILAYO PLASTIC INDUSTRIES LTD. V. FAGBOLA (2019) LPELR- (SC) @ 46-52 and A.P.C. V. MESSIAH (2021) LPELR-55011 (CA) @ 14.”
Jawando urged the Police Command to discountenance the petition filed by Counsel to late Abubakar Olusola Saraki which accused it of contempt of court over the Ile-Arugbo land dispute, saying that contents of the petition are riddled with deliberate misrepresentations and falsehood. ”as a Government founded on and operating on basis of the Rule of Law, we gave an ORAL UNDERTAKING in Suit No: KWS/463/2019 before the Court to the effect that our clients will abide by the Ex-Parte Order of Injunction even after its fourteen (14) day maximum life span and pending the determination of the case on the basis of which, with the CONSENT of both parties, the matter was accorded accelerated hearing.
“In line with our Undertaking, our clients fully complied with the Ex-Parte Order until the Claimants/Petitioners’ Suit KWS/463/2019 was eventually struck by the Court on 2nd February, 2021 for want of diligent prosecution by the Claimants.
He noted further in the reaction that,”having been struck out, the Ex-Parte Order of injunction and the Undertaking came to an end, dead and gone, thereby, leaving our clients with the option of continuing with their proposed developments on the land.
Jawondo however stated that” rather than file an appeal against the Order of the Court striking out their Suit No: KWS/463/2019 or apply for it to be re-listed by the Court, the Claimants/Petitioners filed a new Suit No: KWS/112/2022 on 12th March 2021 which suit was originally assigned to Honorable Justice A. O. Akinpelu who, on 30th March, 2022, on the Claimants/Petitioners’ Ex-Parte .”.”g..”y.application, granted them an Ex-Parte Order of Injunction restraining our clients from carrying out any form of development on the same land which is the subject of the Claimants/Petitioners’ and our clients’ counter-claim in the earlier Suit No: KWS/463/2019 pending before Honorable Justice A. A. Adebara (as he then was).”
He also explained that”It is settled law, by plethora of Court Decisions, that once a matter/case is transferred from one Judge to another, the legal consequence of the Order of transfer is that all proceedings before and or Orders made by the former Judge entertaining the matter/case become null and void and of no legal effect as the matter is to start denovo or afresh. “
He further said that “the administrative transfer of the case to another learned Judge of the Court below for determination during the pendency of this appeal achieved the same result.
“The effect is that the case will start denovo or afresh before another learned Judge. See, the case of Bakule v. Tanerewa Nigeria Limited (1995) 2 NWLR (pt. 380) 728 at 738 where the Court held graphically inter alia that “The effect of starting the case afresh before Adamu J is to sweep clean all previous proceedings in the case before Abdullahi J, See, Odi v. Osafile (supra). Any of the parties therefore is free to bring afresh any application including the type the subject of this appeal”
According to Jawando, ”the Claimants/Petitioners did not at any time bring any application for injunction before Honorable A. A. Adebara CJ before whom their case is lying in the cooler owing the Claimants/Petitioners’ unpreparedness to prosecute the case.
“Premised, on the above and having regard to the settled position of the law, it is crystal clear that as at today, there is no any subsisting Order of Injunction of the Court in Suit No; KWS/112/2022 and or Suit No: KWS/463/2019 and or any suit or case on which the Claimants/Petitioners’ Petition can be hinged.
“The Petition is, therefore, nothing sort of premeditated, calculated and deliberate, reckless misrepresentation, effecting mischief and cheap blackmail by attention seeking litigants who lack faith in their case but merely filed same as a design to Armstrong and frustrate the development of the State having lost out in the political equations of the State since 1999.
“The befitting place for the mischievous Petition is the trash cane and we urge that it should be accordingly treated. “Jawondo said.
However, the Saraki family legal Counsel, while speaking with National pilot, revealed that he petitioned the police for a pending case KWS/112/2021 before Justice Adebara and not KWS/463/2019 that Barrister Jawando claimed.
“Learned silk Ayinla Salman Jawando SAN, seems to lose memory of the case pending before Justice A. A Adibara, the Chief Judge of Kwara State. The suit pending before Justice A. A Adibara has the number KWS/112/2021. We are not talking about the suit with the number KWS/463/2019. That suit is no longer in existence” he declared.
Ibrahim highlighted that Salman Jawando appeared to have forgotten critical details of the case, which has been pending since March 12, 2021. This case, KWS/112/2021, involves high-profile defendants including the Governor of Kwara State, the House of Assembly, the Bureau of Land, the Director General of Kwara State, and the Inspector General of Police.
Ibrahim strongly disputed Salman Jawando’s assertion that no application for an injunction was brought before Justice A.A. Adibara. Ibrahim clarified, “If he says there is no pending application, what about the application dated and filed on the 25th day of March 2021 for interlocutory injunction in the case, which was to be moved on the 2nd day of February 2022, where he made an undertaking.”
Ibrahim disclosed that Honorable Chief Judge Justice A.A. Adibara made a ruling on the interlocutory injunction affirming the defendants’ undertaking not to tamper with the disputed land. He said the ruling explicitly stated that “The court referred to the undertaking given by the first to fourth defendants since February 2020, not to tamper with rest, which undertaking was reinforced by the Learned counsel to the first to fourth defendant on 24-9-2020.”
With the court record, Ibrahim alleged that recent actions on the disputed land indicated a breach of this undertaking. He emphasized that the case remains unresolved and is still pending before Justice A.A. Adibara.
Ibrahim also pointed out discrepancies in Salman Jawando’s references to other case numbers, clarifying, “We don’t have any suit with number KWS/112/2022. What we have before the court pending is KWS/112/2021. There is no suit KWS-463/2019 pending at all.”
Ibrahim urged the court and law enforcement to uphold the existing order and prevent any further actions on the disputed land. He reminded that the Inspector General of Police, a party to the suit, supported the initial undertaking and should ensure compliance.
“The Inspector General of Police is the fifth defendant in this case and was represented during this undertaking. They cannot be excused from this allegation of breach,” Ibrahim stated.