Kwara: Govt solicitors react to violation of court order on Saraki’s disputed land

The Kwara State government lawyers have asked the state Police Commissioner, Victor Olaiya to discountenance a petition forwarded to his office on the disputed land allegedly owned by the late sage, Dr Abubakar Olusola Saraki.

The solicitors said the contents of the petition are riddled with deliberate misrepresentations and falsehood.

Lawyers representing Asa Investment Limited, and Anor on behalf of the Saraki family, alleged a violation of a purported court order on the land by the state high court.

Ayinla Salman Jawondo, SAN, in a reaction sent to the police commissioner in Ilorin on Thursday, described “the petition as nothing short of premeditated, calculated and deliberate reckless misrepresentation, effecting mischief and cheap blackmail by attention seeking litigants who lack faith in their case but merely filed same as a design to armstrong and frustrate the development of the state having lost out in the political equations of the state since 1999.”

The response to the petition forwarded to the police commissioner read in part; “our attention has been drawn to a petition written to your exalted office by the Counsel to the Claimants and signed by AbulAzeez Ayodeji Ibraheem Esq., alleging violation of an imaginary court order by our clients, and in particular, the Governor of Kwara State, His Excellency, Mallam Abdulrahman Abdulrazaq.

“But for the fact that the petition was addressed and delivered to your good office coupled with the grave allegation of disobedience or violation of an alleged court order levelled against a sitting governor, we would not have bothered to dignify the petition with a response.

” To put the record straight, we state as follows; The Claimants/Petitioners in the referenced case (Asa Investment Limited & Anor.) filed Suit No. KWS/463/2019 against the same set of defendants as in the referenced case on 31st December 2019 and on an Ex-Parte application filed, heard and granted by the trial Judge, Honorable Justice A. A. Adebara, our clients were restrained from carrying out any form of development on the land in dispute.

“On behalf of our clients, we joined issues with the Claimants/Petitioners in our Statement of Defence and even filed a counter-claim in respect of the land in dispute.

“By the Rules of the Court and as settled by a plethora of decisions of our courts, the life span of an Ex-Parte Order is a maximum of fourteen (14) days. See, Order 11 Rule 11 (1) & (2) of the Kwara State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2021 and 2022 and the cases of TITILAYO PLASTIC INDUSTRIES LTD. V. FAGBOLA (2019) LPELR- (SC) @ 46-52 and A.P.C. V. MESSIAH (2021) LPELR-55011 (CA) @ 14.

“As a Government founded on and operating on the basis of the Rule of Law, we gave an ORAL UNDERTAKING in Suit No: KWS/463/2019 before the Court to the effect that our clients will abide by the Ex-Parte Order of Injunction even after its 14-day maximum life span and pending the determination of the case based on which, with the CONSENT of both parties, the matter was accorded accelerated hearing.

“In line with our undertaking, our clients fully complied with the Ex-Parte Order until the Claimants/Petitioners’ Suit KWS/463/2019 was eventually struck by the Court on 2nd February 2021 for want of diligent prosecution by the Claimants.

“It is an element knowledge and principle of law that one of the consequences of an Order of a Court striking a Suit for any reason is that the Suit and all Orders, including Ex-Parte Order of Injunction and Undertaking made in the Suit, become null and void and of no any legal effect. SEE, KEYSTONE BANK LTD. V. AMMANI (2015)LPELR40761 (CA) @ 12

“Therefore, the Claimants/Petitioners’ Suit No: KWS/463/2019 having been struck out, the Ex-Parte Order of injunction and the Undertaking came to an end, dead and gone, thereby, leaving our clients with the option of continuing with their proposed developments on the land.

“As a law-abiding Government operating on the basis of the Rule of law, even after the Claimants/Petitioners’ Suit was struck out with only our clients’ counter-claim remaining on the Court’s docket, our clients still did not proceed with their proposed developments on the land.

“Rather than file an appeal against the Order of the Court striking out their Suit No: KWS/463/2019 or apply for it to be re-listed by the Court, the Claimants/Petitioners filed a new Suit No: KWS/112/2022 on 12th March 2021 which suit was originally assigned to Honorable Justice A. O. Akinpelu who, on 30th March 2022, on the Claimants/Petitioners’ Ex-Parte application, granted them an Ex-Parte Order of Injunction restraining our clients from carrying out any form of development on the same land which is the subject of the Claimants/Petitioners’ and our clients’ counter-claim in the earlier Suit No: KWS/463/2019 pending before Honorable Justice A. A. Adebara (as he then was).

“Since our clients’ counter-claim was still pending before Honorable Justice A. A. Adebara, we made an application to the then Chief Judge, Honorable Justice S. D. Kawu under the relevant provisions of the Rules of the Court for the transfer of the Claimants/Petitioners’ Suit No: KWS/112/2022 to Honorable Justice A. A. Adabara (as he then was) where our clients’ counter-claim was still pending as the land in dispute and the parties remain the same in the two cases.

“On the basis of our application for transfer, the then Chief Judge, Honorable Justice S. D. Kawu transferred Suit No: KWS/112/2022 to Honorable Justice A. A. Adebara J where the Claimants/Petitioners’ Suit No: KWS/112/2022 and our clients’ counter-claim in Suit No: KWS/463/2019 are still pending till today,” the statement added.