An Oyo State High Court has ordered the state government to stop recognising the Onpetu of Ijeru as the traditional ruler of the Ogbomoso community.
Justice K. Adedokun in a December 14 judgment upheld an earlier judgment of a state high court, which ordered that the state government should stop recognising Onpetu as the paramount ruler of the community.
Ijeru is a quarters in Ogbomoso.
The court ordered the government to recognise the claimant, Chief Popoola Olaniyi Elijah, as the ruler of the community. The title will now change from Onpetu of Ijeru to Onijeru of Ijeru.
The judgment also restrained the Onpetu, Oba Sunday Oyediran Oladapo, from further parading himself as the paramount ruler of Ijeru Quarters, Ogbomoso.
Popoola had dragged Oba Oladapo, the Oyo State Governor and the Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice to court over failure to obey the 1987 court judgment when no appeal was filed against it since then.
Justice Adedokun, in the new judgment, ordered the state government and the attorney general from further recognising Oladapo as the ruler of Ijeru Quarters.
The claimant was represented by his counsel, C. I. Olinya, while Mr. Femi Oladimeji held the brief for the 1st defendant (Oladapo). The 2nd and 3rd defendants, according to the judgment, did not make any legal representation.
The chieftaincy stool of Ijeru had been a contention between the Ijeru and Onpetu families of Ogbomoso for decades.
The judgment read: “Pursuant to the judgment of this honourable court delivered on the 24 April, 1987 in suit number HOG/12/86, to which there is no pending appeal, the claimant (Baale of Ijeru) is the ruler of Ijeru Quarters in Ogbomoso township, Oyo State.”
“The second and third defendants are hereby directed to recognise the claimant as the ruler of Ijeru Quarters, Ogbomoso.
“The 1st defendant is perpetually restrained from parading himself or claiming or putting himself out as the paramount ruler of Ijeru Quarters, Ogbomoso township, Oyo State.”
The court said it was only the first defendant that contested the suit, while the 2nd and 3rd defendants, despite being served with the originating summons on August 3, 2021 and hearing notice on November 5, 2021, did not give attention to the notice.
“It is trite that a court of law cannot force a defendant to defend against him. If he chooses not to defend when all opportunities open to him are available, it means he is ready to be bound by the outcome of the case whichever way it goes,” the judge held.
Though, the first defendant said through his counsel that the court should call for oral evidence to ascertain whether or not there was an appeal against the earlier judgment, the court held that the said judgment was still valid because there was nothing before it to warrant holding otherwise.
“Accordingly, issues 2 and 3 are also resolved in favour of the claimant,” the judge held.
