By Ola Ajayi

AS an Oyo State High Court began hearing of a suit filed by Seriki royal line against the Olubadan-in-Council over the appointment of a new Olubadan of Ibadanland, counsel to the council, Mr Michael Folorunso Lana, yesterday, told the court that the complainant had only succeeded in instituting litigation against dead people. According to him, defendants in the case except Chief Saliu Adetunji  are dead.

But, in response, counsel to Seriki Line, Mr Abideen Adeniran said they could exclude those who are dead through a motion he had already prepared. Since the death of the late Olubadan of Ibadanland, Oba Samuel Odulana Odugade 1, the traditional council has been enmeshed in crisis over who succeeds him. The defendants in the case include: Oba Samuel Odulana, Chief Omowale Kuye , Chief Adeleke Ajani, Chief Saliu Adetunji and Busari Alarape.

The applicants’ counsel  was about to present a motion to the court when the other counsel told the court that he just took over the case and would require for some days to react to the motion. Mr. Adeniran said his learned colleague was just using a delay tactics adding that he had served all the necessary processes six days ago wondering how much time it would take his learned colleague to react to it.

The court insisted  that counsel to Olubadan was right to say he would need to study it and react. Before the adjournment of the case to February 16, 2016, the two counsel were engaged in a heated argued before they could agree on the next adjourned date. While the counsel to Seriki was praying the court for a short adjournment date, the counsel to Olubadan in council wanted the sitting to be adjourned to March which the other counsel objected to.

While objecting, he begged the court to consider a short adjournment date   because of the urgency of the case . But, the court presided over by Justice Mukhtar  Abimbola who is the Oyo State Chief Judge, said the counsel should agree on a date. Speaking after the court had risen, Counsel to Olubadan-in-Council, Mr Lana said there was an application that the court has no jurisdiction to hear this matter and that we are not aware whether the motion has been heard and the ruling or judgment delivered”.