The High Court in Lokoja on Thursday ordered a stay of execution of the judgment sacking the Ohinoyi of Ebiraland , Ahmed-Anaje.
Justice Umar Salisu gave the order following an application for stay of execution on his earlier judgment that removed Anaje as Ohinoyi of Ebiraland.
Freedomonline reports that the traditional ruler was removed by Justice Salisu in his judgment in a case filed by Daudu Adeku-Ojiah, Hussain Yusuf and Abdulrahaam Suberu, challenging the Ohinoyi’s appointment by the former governor of the state, Yahaya Bello.
The State Attorney General, Muiz Abdullahi (SAN), and the Ohinoyi, who filed the application for stay of execution, had told the court that they have filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal in Abuja.
Abdullahi, prayed the court to grant an order for stay of execution in the judgment delivered on Feb. 3, in Suit No. HCO/05C/2024, pending the determination of the appeal lodged to the appellate court.
“We also pray for any such orders or other orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of the application,’’ he pleaded.
Responding, Mr Sani Abbas, who represented the Claimants/Respondents, objected to the application.
In his ruling, Justice Salisu, granted the prayer.
”The application is hereby granted. The order is that the status quo remains pending the determination of the appeal filed before the court of appeal,” he held.
“The defendants have argued that there are still live issues pending before this court and the appeal court in relation to Suit No.HCO/12C/2006.
”It is therefore logical that all issues connected to these cases, the instant case inclusive should be preserved until the outcome of the case is determined either by this court or Court of Appeal,” he held.
In its appeal, the state government prayed the appellate court to give an order setting aside the decision of the lower court.
The state also prayed the court to dismiss the suit of the 1st to 3rd Respondents at the trial court for lacking in merit
The appellants, however, claimed that the ruling in HCO/12c/2006 that is Exhibit 1, relied upon by the 1st to 3rd Respondents was an interlocutory ruling in respect of processing, nomination, selection and appointment of some set of persons at the time, as Ohis to the five districts of Okengwe/Okene, Eia, lhima, Adavi and Eganyi.
He added that the trial judge erred in law and reached a perverse decision when he placed heavy reliance on Exhibit P.O 4 annexed to an “Affidavit of Facts in Response to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants’ Notice of Preliminary Objection.
