The adoption of final written addresses in the protracted legal battle over the Obaship of the Igbobi Sabe community in Lagos Mainland was last Thursday stalled after counsel to the second and third defendants said he was unable to proceed.
When the matter came up before Justice Akintunde Savage of the Lagos State High Court, Ikeja, counsel to the 2nd and 3rd defendants, Mr Afeez Abdullahi, informed the court that he was not ready to adopt his final written address because he received the court’s record of proceedings late.
Following the application, Justice Savage adjourned the matter until September 28, 2026, for the adoption of final written addresses.
The suit, marked ID/948/13, was instituted by Chief Solomon Afolabi Apelehin, Prince Aderemi Apelehin, Prince Adesola Apelehin and Prince Ademola Apelehin against Owolabi Adeyemi Adeniyi, the Lagos State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, the Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, and the Chairman of the Surulere, Mainland and Apapa Chieftaincy Advisory Committee.
The claimants are challenging the appointment and installation of Adeniyi as the traditional ruler of Igbobi Sabe, contending that it was the turn of the Igbobi Sabe ruling house to produce the next monarch following the death of Oba Adebowale Salami.
They are asking the court to declare that Adeniyi is not a member of either of the two recognised ruling houses in the community and was therefore ineligible to contest or be appointed as Oba.
The claimants also seek declarations nullifying his appointment and installation, an order compelling the Lagos State Government to install Prince Aderemi Apelehin as the duly nominated Oba-elect, and a perpetual injunction restraining the government from recognising or paying any remuneration to Adeniyi as Oba of Igbobi Sabe.
According to the claimants, the Igbobi Sabe community has historically recognised only two ruling houses, Igbobi Sabe and Igbobi Ketu, as entitled to produce candidates for the throne, a position they said was affirmed by a 1994 tribunal of inquiry established by the Lagos State Government.
They maintained that after the death of Oba Adebowale Salami, who hailed from the Igbobi Ketu ruling house, the stool reverted to the Igbobi Sabe ruling house, which subsequently nominated Prince Aderemi Apelehin as its candidate in 2011.
The claimants alleged that despite several representations to the state government, Adeniyi, whom they insist does not belong to any recognised ruling house, was installed as monarch in violation of the customs and traditions of the community.
Adeniyi, however, denied the claims, maintaining that the community has three recognised ruling houses: Ijaoye, Ojomo Eyisha and Igbobi Sabe/Ketu.
He contended that he belongs to the Maforunyomi lineage of the Idi Omo branch of the Ijaoye ruling house and was lawfully nominated and installed as the Olu of Igbobi Sabe after the death of the previous monarch in 2009.
The matter had earlier witnessed a significant interlocutory ruling on the defendants’ application to recall a witness.
However, the court refused the defendants’ request to retender documents that had previously been rejected.
However, the court refused the defendants’ request to retender documents that had previously been rejected.
The defendants had argued that the documents, including court processes in Suit No. ID/453M/2002, minutes of a stakeholders’ meeting and a Memorandum of Understanding, were inadvertently omitted during the witness’s earlier testimony due to counsel’s mistake.
The claimants opposed the application, contending that reopening the defendants’ case after cross-examination had commenced would unfairly allow them to strengthen their case and that a document already rejected by the court could not be tendered again.
In his ruling, Justice Savage held that while the court would exercise its discretion in favour of allowing the witness to give further evidence in the interest of justice, documents previously rejected by the court remained inadmissible.
“The witness may tender other documents, but the ones earlier tendered and rejected remain rejected and cannot be retendered,” the judge ruled.
With the trial now concluded, the matter awaits the adoption of final written addresses before judgement can be reserved.