The governor of Ondo State, Rotimi Akeredolu, requested that the Federal High Court in Abuja revoke his temporary injunction from September 26 due to lack of jurisdiction, but the court denied his request on Friday.

The speaker and the state assembly had filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal on the matter before Justice Emeka Nwite, who instead decided to adjourn the suit indefinitely.

Additionally, he rejected the speaker’s and Akeredolu’s requests to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction.

Read Also: Kenya fully prepared to undertake peacekeeping duties in Haiti

The judge ruled that in order to prevent judicial misbehaviour, it would be prudent for the court to postpone the case “sine die” until the appeal’s decision was made.
According to the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN), on October 20, the speaker and the assembly filed an appeal against the temporary ruling issued by Justice Nwite on September 26.

Two reliefs were sought in their appeal filed at the Appeal Court, Abuja.

Two of these are “an order allowing the appeal and directing that the substantive matter be dismissed for want of jurisdiction,” and “an order setting aside the ex-parte order of the lower court made on September 26.”
The judge reportedly prevented the state assembly from impeaching Aiyedatiwa on September 26 due to alleged serious wrongdoing, according to NAN.

Aiyedatiwa’s attorney, Kayode Adewusi, made an ex-parte motion to that effect, and Nwite issued an interim order immediately after.

Furthermore, he prevented Akeredolu from proposing a replacement deputy governor to the legislature for approval, based on a supposedly written and signed resignation letter from Aiyedatiwa, until the interlocutory application had been heard and decided.
The beleaguered Deputy Governor, Lucky Aiyedatiwa, sued the I-G and DSS as first and second defendants in an ex-parte application filed under the case number: FHC/ABJ/CS/1294/2023.

Additional parties to the lawsuit are Chief Judge of Ondo State, Speaker of the House of Assembly Akeredolu, and the House of Assembly itself, which are the first through sixth respondents, respectively.

Aiyedatiwa requested four reliefs in the application, which was dated September 21 and submitted by Mr. Adelanke Akinrata.
However, on October 4, Akeredolu requested—through his attorney, Kassim Gbadamosi, SAN—that the court’s temporary injunction, which was improperly acquired due to lack of jurisdiction, be set aside, along with all other hearings related to the case that were held on September 26.

In addition, the governor requested an order dismissing or striking out the lawsuit due to lack of jurisdiction.
Additionally, on October 27, the speaker of the assembly requested an order stating that the claim was incompetent and that the court had the necessary procedural or substantive jurisdiction to consider it in an application submitted by his attorney, Femi Emodamori.

However, on October 30, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN, the attorney for Aiyedatiwa, appealed for the court to reject Akeredolu and the speaker’s motions, arguing that they had no locus (legal right) to present such arguments.
In order to await the Court of Appeal’s ruling, Adegboruwa sought that the case be postponed sine die (indefinitely), as the speaker and the assembly (the fourth and sixth defendants) had filed an appeal.

He asked the judge to grant the parties’ request to go to the appeal court so that the court wouldn’t have to spend time debating whether or not it had jurisdiction and could avoid going to trial in front of the higher court.
Justice Nwite concurred with Adegboruwa’s argument in issuing the order on Friday, stating that the court cannot conflict with the Appeal Court’s jurisdiction. This also applied to the ongoing decision that was scheduled to be made about the parties’ October 16 arguments.

The reliefs requested in that appeal impact the court’s jurisdiction and are identical to the reliefs requested by the third and fourth defendants in their applications, as can be seen from the aforementioned reliefs.

“To engage in such behaviour will truly be judicial misbehaviour.”After considering the aforementioned considerations, I maintain that the plaintiff’s (Aiyedatiwa) application is meritorious and well-founded.

As a result, the judge said, “The matter is hereby adjourned sine die.”