The bid by two Lagosians, Abiodun Ariori and Tajudeen Akanbi (representatives of the family of late Chief Mojisola Cole) to obtain an interim Injunction to restrain NASCO Town Ltd from exercising possessory rights over an expanse of land located at Abule Oshun in Ojo Local Government Area of Lagos State failed on Thursday as the Vacation Judge, Hon. Justice Aishat Opesanwo directed them back to the substantive Court (Hon Justice M. A, Savage) to continue further proceedings in the case after the vacation.
Justice Opesanwo told the lawyers present in her court that there’s no sufficient time for her to conduct all the cases as the end of vacation was imminent. “Today is the last day this court will sit. Tomorrow is Friday and Monday is another Public Holiday. A new legal year resumes next week and I will ask all of you to go back to the substantive courts originally handling your cases”, she said.
The judge decried the practice of lawyers invoking the jurisdiction of vacation judges in respect of matters that are devoid of any element of urgency as required by the rules. The judge warned that cases that ought to come before vacation courts are ones that are urgent in nature. “It’s like a doctor handling an emergency surgery. Many of the cases you filed here are not emergency cases. You file frivolous applications and get orders that may conflict with that of the substantive court. When judges are blamed for conflicting orders, no one blames lawyers that file conflicting applications. I will not entertain any case today. Go back to your substantive courts and handle your cases there”, the learned judge said.
The Defendants had approached the vacation judge for an interim Injunction against the Claimant (NASCO) despite that there is a subsisting interlocutory injunction in favour of NASCO, by the substantive court which had restrained the Defendants and their agents from interfering with the land.
The Defendants vacation processes filed by Hussain Tijani of H.O.T Chambers have Abiodun Ariori, Prosperous Ariori Golden Ventures Limited, Pertinence Limited, Terralords Nigeria Limited, Unknown Persons, Mrs Oluwaremilekun Ariyo (nee Cole), Mr Oluwasegun Cole, Oladapo Cole, Mr Tanimowo Cole, and Dr Islamia Efumbowale Cole (The Head and Principal members of Chief Michael Mojisola Cole family) as the Applicants.
In a 19-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Tajudeen Akanbi, the Defendants claimed that the land belongs to them and that NASCO should be restrained from exercising possessory right over the land.
Meanwhile, on May 16, 2024, Hon. Justice Savage (the substantive court in charge of the matter) had granted an interlocutory injunction in favour of the Claimants (NASCO), restraining the Defendants from carrying out any act of ownership on the land. The injunction was sequel to an application filed by Nasco Town Ltd as the major applicant. Other applicants were Incorporated Trustees of NASCO Landlords and Residents Association, Mr Ekpunobi Osita Charles, Mr Samuel Okorie Metu, Mr Idafum Chima Theaddeus, Mr Ernest Enemuo Onubogu, Mr Okoli Obiora, Mr Johnpaul Ebuka Umebulue, Mr Victor Okoye, and Mr Chukwudi Okorji.
The land in question forms part of a large parcel of land which was originally acquired by the Federal Government via the Federal Government Notice 1138 published in the Official Gazette No. 44 Vol. 64 of 8 September 1977. The land was leased to NASCO by the Federal Government by virtue of a Lease Agreement dated the 5th day of June 1978 and registered as No. 92 on Page 92 of Volume 1739 of the Lands Register.
The land was undeveloped in all ramifications before it was leased to NASCO, and the company has since the lease agreement invested substantially in the development of the land through the obtaining of requisite outline and development approval from both the State and Federal Government, clearing and sand filling, construction of estates and access roads, development of Free Trade Zone, Jetty and Terminal Facility, maintaining the integrity of the land and meeting its financial obligations to the government as it relates to the land.
According to NASCO, it has since been on the land exercising acts of ownership and undisturbed possession until 2017 when the Defendants led by Mr. Abiodun Ariori started laying claims on the land and entering into transactions with third parties on some parts of the land. It was in view of the Defendants’ alleged acts of trespass that NASCO sued them before the High Court of Lagos State seeking inter alia a declaration of title and perpetual injunction.
Despite being aware of the matter since 2020, the Defendants only filed their defence in 2024. Even while the matter was still pending before the Court, the Defendants continued to carry out acts of ownership over the land despite the pendency of the matter in court. NASCO’s counsel Chief Anthony George Ikoli SAN therefore applied to the Court for an order of injunction to restrain the Defendants from such acts pending the determination of the suit. After carefully considering the evidence of the parties and arguments canvassed by their Counsel, Justice Savage on May 16, granted an injunction restraining the Defendants from continuing construction works or exercising acts of ownership over the land pending the determination of the suit.
The Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal dated May 24 2024. However, the appeal has not been entered neither has there been a compilation of records.
The Defendants also filed a motion before the substantive court for stay of execution against the injunction. This application was initially fixed for hearing on July 10 2024 (shortly before the commencement of the Judges’ vacation).
However, due to the failure of the defendants to serve the application on some of the respondents, the court adjourned the hearing of the application to October 14, 2024.
While this application is still pending before the substantive court, the defendants filed a fresh application before the vacation judge, seeking an order restraining NASCO from exercising ‘possessory right’ overthe land. But the learned vacation judge, Justice Opesanwo asked them to return to the court of Justice M. A Savage, noting that vacation periods should not be used by lawyers to obtain orders that may conflict with the subsisting orders made by the substantive courts.
Comments