In Ado-Ekiti, the Ekiti State High Court dismissed a lawsuit contesting Princes Adenike Ogundahunsi’s designation as the regent of Araromi Obo Ekiti, located in the Irepodun/Ifelodun Local Government Area of Ekiti State.
Chief Lawrence Alabi of Owa-Olobo in Council, Princess T.O. Ajayi Olowokere, and Pa Francis Adedara of Owa Olobo Chieftaincy Ruling House, Araromi-Obo Ekiti, filed the lawsuit without HAD/07/2023.
The Attorney General Dayo Apata SAN, the Executive Secretary of the Bureau of Chieftaincy Affairs, the Governor of the State Biodun Oyebanji, the Chairman of the Irepodun-Ifelodun Local Government Area of Ekiti State, Pa Joshua Bankole, and Adenike Ogundahunsi joined the lawsuit.
A permanent injunction prohibiting Mrs. Adenike Ogundahunsi from posing as the regent of Araromi-Obo, Ekiti State, was also denied by the court, which was presided over by Justice Olalekan Olatawura.
Princess Ogundahunsi should be removed from office because, according to plaintiff’s attorney Paul Akomolafe, she was not the legitimate heir.
Witness statements were also taken under oath on April 5, 2024, by the defendants’ attorneys, Kayode Oyeyemi, who represented the fifth and sixth defendants, and James Olowoyo, a Deputy Director in the Ministry of Justice, who represented the first four defendants.
Following a thorough analysis of the case’s circumstances, Justice Olalekan Olatawura rendered a decision that denied the plaintiff’s prayer.
As the law and governance detest a vacuum, Justice Alatawura stated: “In my opinion, it will be in the interest of justice if the sixth defendant continues to act as a Regent and carry out her duties as the interim ruler of Araromi-Obo, Ekiti until the outcome of the kingship tussle is known, or the Governor and/or the Ekiti State government decide otherwise.”
Section 4(2) of the 2015 regency statute, which states that the governor may also prolong the regent’s term, I believe applies in this case.
In any case, the fact that the Ekiti State government, governor, and/or executive council have not requested that she cease her regency duties suggests that they do not object to her serving in that capacity for a period of six months.
“Therefore, I decline to issue a perpetual injunction prohibiting the sixth defendant from functioning as Regent in the given situation.
Overall, this action is unsuccessful, and it is therefore rejected. Each party will pay its own expenses.
