Effort of a defendant’s counsel, Mr Kehinde Akerele to bar journalists from covering and reporting an ongoing civil case challenging attempt to forcefully takeover a land belonging to a renowned medical doctor and international consultant, Dr. Ojo Ademola Oluwatosin in Lagos has been refused by a Lagos high court.
Justice Akinkunmi Idowu who declined the plea by a Defendant counsel, Mr Akerele held that the court derives no such power to restrain the media from covering the court proceedings, more particularly if the report is correct and according to what happened before the court.
Akerele was requesting the court to caution the Claimant from using the media in publishing the court’s proceedings, but the retorted the journalists have the constitutional duty to report whatever that goes on in an open court.
Claimant counsel, Dr Adekunle Ojo, SAN, denied using the media in publishing the court proceedings.
Respondents in the suit no. LD/15415LMW/24 filed by the claimant are Starmark finance company Ltd, Stephen Ajibade-Abisuga, Tunju Solaja and ex-chairman of a Lagos task force team, Engineer Peter Omotosho.
The Claimant was praying the court to restrain the Defendants from usurping the right of ownership of the Claimant over the land located in Lekki, Lagos.
Meanwhile, the presiding Judge has adjourned until May 20 for continuation of hearing of the suit filed by the medical doctor.
At the last hearing, Dr. Ojo, SAN had informed the court of an application dated Feb.19 seeking the withdrawal of the law firm of the Attorney-General of Lagos State and Commissioner for Justice, Mr Lawal Pedro (SAN) from handling the suit.
The Claimant lawyer’s application was hinged on the fact that the law firm, Lawal Pedro SAN & Associates which is presently representing the 1st Defendant in the suit cannot do so “on the ground of conflict of interest.”
The Claimant also praying the court to set “aside the order for change of counsel of the 1st Defendant to the Law firm of Lawal Pedro (SAN) & Associates granted on the 18th February, 2025.”
In the Motion on Notice, the Claimant hinges his application on the ground that the “office of the Attorney General had earlier issued DPP advice against the party his private law firm Lawal Pedro (SAN) & Associates seeks to represent.”
The Claimant also claimed that the 1st Defendant as represented by Lawal Pedro and Associates suppressed fact before the court that the Attorney General is “the principal partner/founder of Lawal Pedro (SAN) & Associates who has issued a DPP’s advice criminally indicting the company and some individuals, recommending them for prosecution.
Counsel to the first respondent, Mr Kehinde Akerele in his response informed the court that he had two pending applications before the court and that the applications has been served on all the parties.
Akerele said the application dated April 7 sought the leave of court to seek an order for the first respondent to change address of service.
The claimant’s counsel however informed the court that he had just been served and that he needed ample of time to study and reply.
Justice Idowu thereafter adjourned the case until May 20, 2025 for the claimant’s counsel to file his response and for the hearing of the case.
