A Lagos State High Court has ordered all parties in the dispute over the Oloja of Lagos chieftaincy stool to maintain the status quo pending the final determination of the substantive suit.
Justice Olalekan Oresanya gave the order on Wednesday after throwing out a preliminary objection filed by Prince Babajide Kosoko, who had faulted the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case. The objection enjoyed the backing of the first defendant, the Oba of Lagos, Oba Rilwan Akiolu.
The suit was instituted by the Head of the Akinsanya Olojo Ruling House, Prince Surajudeen Olojo-Kosoko, alongside the ruling house’s General Secretary, Prince Theophilus Olojo-Kosoko, and Prince Abiola Kosoko, suing for themselves and on behalf of the Akinsanya Olojo-Kosoko Ruling House.
Others joined in the suit as defendants include Oba Akiolu; the Lagos State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice; the Commissioner for Local Government, Chieftaincy Affairs and Rural Development; the Executive Chairman of Lagos Island Local Government; Prince Babajide Kosoko, Mr Muritala Kosoko, and Mr Tunji Kosoko.
Counsel to the claimants, Olusegun Fabunmi (SAN), told the court that his clients were challenging attempts to sideline Prince Abiola Kosoko, who he said remained the duly nominated candidate of the Akinsanya Olojo Ruling House for the stool.
But counsel to Prince Babajide Kosoko, Dayo Oshodi (SAN), had in the preliminary objection argued that the matter bordered on the nomination, selection and installation of a traditional ruler — issues he insisted fell under customary law and the Lagos State Obas and Chiefs Law, and therefore outside the court’s jurisdiction. He had urged the court to strike out the suit.
The claimants kicked against this, maintaining that the nomination process was long concluded in 2020 when Prince Abiola Kosoko emerged as the ruling house’s candidate. They claimed the crisis only erupted following a land-related disagreement, during which some of the defendants allegedly disregarded the earlier nomination and moved to process the candidacy of other princes instead.
Ruling on the objection, Justice Oresanya held that the claimants had disclosed a reasonable cause of action that deserved to be heard by the court. He noted that the issues raised could not be resolved at the interlocutory stage and would require full trial.
The judge held that where a preliminary objection requires evidence to resolve, such an objection ceases to be purely jurisdictional and must instead be determined during the substantive hearing.
“I find no merit in the preliminary objection filed by the fifth defendant. The objection is overruled, and the application is accordingly dismissed,” Justice Oresanya ruled.
On the claimants’ bid for an interlocutory injunction to stop the defendants from nominating, selecting, appointing or installing any other person as Oloja of Lagos pending the outcome of the case, the court declined the request. Justice Oresanya explained that granting the injunction at this stage would amount to prejudging issues already before the court and could work against the defendants ahead of trial.
The court, however, ordered all parties to preserve the situation as it existed before the events that led to the disputed nomination of the fifth and sixth defendants — a move that effectively keeps Prince Abiola Olojo-Kosoko in place as Oloja-elect pending the outcome of the suit.
Justice Oresanya further directed that the matter be accorded accelerated hearing to ensure speedy resolution, and adjourned the case to October 6, 2026, for hearing of the substantive suit.
READ ALSO:
- Tinubu: FCT Better Off Under Wike 50 Years After Creation
- Plateau Violence: Youth Coalition Says 200 Killed in Five Months, Demands Stronger Security Response
- Nigeria, Ghana Agree to Push Afrophobia Onto AU Summit Agenda
- Cyberattack Forces ECNBA to Delay NBA Presidential Election
- The Benefits of Apples: Why You Should Try Apple Water
