Ile Arugbo: Saraki Family Promoting Falsehood, Ignore Their Petition, Kwara Govt Tells Police

Kwara state government on Thursday accused counsel for the Saraki family of misrepresenting facts and promoting falsehood in respect of the state of things at Ile Arugbo.

The controversial plots of land  in GRA  ,Ilorin  which is  popularly called  Ile-Arugbo is said to be the property of late Abubakar Olusola Saraki.

Recall that counsel for Saraki family,  Barrister A. A. Ibraheem had earlier in the week raised an allegation  of violation of court order against the state government .

He had made this allegation in a petition he sent to the state Commissioner of Police, Mr. Victor Olaiya.

Alhaji Ayinla Salman Jawondo , a Senior Advocate of Nigeria , who is  the counsel for  the governor of Kwara state, Attorney General of Kwara state and  the Director General of Kwara state Bureau of Land, submitted in a counterpetition sent to the police chief  which was dated 24th July, 2024 , that  Barrister A. A. Ibraheem’s allegations are untrue adding that there is no subsisting Order of Injunction restraining the state government from taking any action on the plots of land in question.

‘We are the solicitors representing the 1st, 3rd and 4th defendants (Governor of Kwara state, Attorney General of Kwara state and Director General of Kwara state Bureau of Land) in the above referenced case pending before His Lordship, the Chief Judge of Kwara State, Honorabe Justice A. A. Adebara.

Our attention has been drawn to a Petition written to your exalted office by the Counsel for the Claimants and signed by AbulAzeez Ayodeji Ibraheem Esq., alleging violation of an imaginary Court Order by our clients, and in particular, the governor of Kwara state, His Excellency, Mallam Abdulrahman Abdulrazaq.

But for the fact that the Petition was addressed and delivered to your office coupled with the grave allegation of disobedience or violation of an alleged Court Order leveled against a sitting governor, we would not have bothered to dignify the Petition with a response. To put the record straight, we state as follow;

1.  The Claimants/Petitioners in the referenced case (Asa Investment Limited & Anor.) filed Suit No. KWS/463/2019 against the same set of defendants as in the referenced case on 31st December, 2019 and on an Ex-Parte application filed, heard and granted by the trial Judge, Honorable Justice A. A. Adebara, our clients were restrained from carrying out any form of development on the land in dispute.  

2.  On behalf of our clients, we joined issues with the Claimants/Petitioners in our Statement of Defence and even filed a counter-claim in respect of the land in dispute.

3.  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. See, 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.   

4.  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.

5.  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.

6.  It is an element knowledge and principle of law that one of the consequences of an Order of a Court striking a Suit for any reason, is that the Suit and all Orders, including Ex-Parte Order of Injunction and Undertaking made in the Suit become null and void and of no any legal effect. SEE, KEYSTONE BANK LTD. V. AMMANI (2015)LPELR40761 (CA) @ 12 Therefore, the Claimants/Petitioners’ Suit No: KWS/463/2019 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.     

7.  As a law- abiding Government operating on the basis of the Rule of law, even after the Claimants/Petitioners’ Suit was struck out with only our clients’ counter-claim remaining on the Court’s docket, our clients still did not proceed with their proposed developments on the land.

8.  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 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).

9.   Since our clients’ counter-claim was still pending before Honorable Justice A. A. Adebara, we made an application to the then Chief Judge, Honorable Justice S. D. Kawu under the relevant provisions of the Rules of the Court for the transfer of the Claimants/Petitioners’ Suit No: KWS/112/2022 to Honorable Justice A. A. Adebara (as he then was) where our clients’ counter-claim was still pending as the land in dispute and the parties remain the same in the two cases. 

10.     On the basis of our application for transfer, the then Chief Judge, Honorable Justice S. D. Kawu transferred Suit No: KWS/112/2022 to Honorable Justice A. A. Adebara J where the Claimants/Petitioners’ Suit No: KWS/112/2022 and our clients’ counter-claim in Suit No: KWS/463/2019 are still pending till today.

11.     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. We seek your indulgence to refer to two Decisions of our Courts on the effect of transfer of a case from one Judge to another or an Order for trial denovo. SEE, OSAFILE V. ODI (1990) LPLER-2783 (SC) @ 19. In the case of CARNATION REGISTRARS LTD, V UZEBGU (2018) LPELR-50879 (CA) @ 22-23, the Court held;

     ‘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 a fresh application including the type and  the subject of this appeal” 

12.     The Claimants/Petitioners did not at any point in time bring any application for injunction before Honorable A. A. Adebara CJ before who their case is lying in the cooler owing the Claimants/Petitioners’ unpreparedness to prosecute the case.

13.     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.

13.     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.      

14.     The befitting place for the mischievous Petition is the trash cane and we urge that it should be accordingly treated. 

15.     It is instructive to note that since the Claimants/Petitioners’ Suit No: KWS/112/2022 was transferred to Honorable Justice A. A. Adebara CJ, in September, 2022, the Claimants/Petitioners have played all tricks in the books to ensure that their case is not heard such that they have failed, refused and or neglected to file the necessary Court Processes to position the Case for hearing.

16.     The Claimants/Petitioners developed cold feet on their Case having failed to secure another Ex-Parte Order of Injunction which is the only purpose for which they filed the Suits. In fact the last time the case came up before the trial Chief Judge, Honorable A. A. Adebara CJ, was on 5th June, 2023, and since then the Claimants/Petitioners have no deemed it fit take steps to position their case for hearing as required by the Rules of the Court. Thus, the Claimants/Petitioners’ Suit is not only dormant but in abeyance’ Jawondo asserted in the counterpetition while asking the police chief to ignore the petition submitted by counsel for the Saraki family.

‘Premised on the facts and the position of the law as espoused above, we urge the Police to disregard the Petition that had its contents  riddled with deliberate misrepresentations and falsehood. The Petition is a tall tree without roots and a mere attempt to clap with one hand’ he added-Team@orientactualmags.com  Do you have any information you wish to share with us? Do you want us to cover your event or programme? Kindly send SMS to 08059100286, 09094171980 or get in touch via orientactualmag@gmail.com.  Thank you