An Osogbo High Court, presided over by the State Chief Judge, Justice Adepele Ojo yesterday reserved ruling till today on the application filed by the plaintiffs to the Ooni of Ife Chieftaincy Tussle to remove the name of the first defendant, Osun State Governor, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola from the list of defendants in the case before the court.
Besides, the second and third defendants, Obalufe of Ile-Ife, Oba Solomon Folorunsho Omisakin and Lowa of Ife, Chief Joseph Ijaodola respectively, also through their counsel, Mr Peter Ogunleye filed motion challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case, saying that the court lack competence to handle the case.
Sooko Adegoke and Prince Marcus Adebola Akimoyero had on behalf of Lafogido Ruling House of Ile-Ife sued Governor Rauf Aregbesola, the Obalufe of Ile-Ife, Oba Solomon Omisakin and Lowa of Ife, High Chief Joseph Ijaduola on the decision to allow only Giesi Ruling House present the next Ooni.
When the case came up yesterday, lead counsel to the plaintiffs, Mr. Abiodun Olaide, told the court that he had filed a motion to exclude the first defendant, Governor Aregbesola from the case.
Olaide who did not give any reason for the exclusion notice, noted that he has right to sue and also to withdraw his case at any time.
He thereby sought the order of the court to remove the first defendant from the case and allow only the second and third defendants’ remain as defendants.
But, the lead-counsel to the first defendant, Mr Wale Afolabi who is also the Former State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice opposed the motion to exclude his client from the case.
He argued that the plaintiffs cannot withdraw from the case without asking for court permission, insisting that it was too late to challenge the declaration of 1979/80 that allowed Giesi to produce the next Ooni.
But Olaide objected to the oral application made by counsels to the defendant, adding “the petition challenging the jurisdiction of the court was new and has not been served on him.
He said the oral application made by counsel to the first defendant was frivolous, saying he should have reacted since he has been served the motion.