Ohinoyi Throne: Court Grants Stay of Execution as Ododo Appeals

Kogi State High Court, sitting in Lakoja on Thursday, has granted a stay of execution over the last judgement on the case of the Ohinoyi of Ebiraland.

The court also ordered the maintenance of status quo in the case of Ohinoyi of Ebiraland, Ahmed-Anaje, who was sacked on February 3.

Justice Umar Salisu of High Court VI, gave the order on Wednesday following an application for stay of execution on his earlier judgement that removed Anaje as Ohinoyi of Ebiraland.

Salisu sacked the Ohinoyi of Ebiraland, Tijani Ahmed-Anaje, in a judgement he delivered on February 3, in Lokoja, with a charge to Ahmed-Anaje to stop parading himself as the Ohinoyi of Ebiraland.

The Kogi State Attorney General, Muiz Abdullahi (SAN), and the Ohinoyi, who filed the application for stay of execution, told the court that they have already filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal in Abuja.

Abdullahi stood for Ododo, 1st and 2nd Defendants/Applicants, while Z.E. Abbas Esq. stood for Ohinoyi, 3rd Defendant/Applicant.

“We prayed the court to grant an order for staying execution of the judgement of this honourable Court (Coram: Hon.Justice Salisu Umar, Court (6) delivered on Feb. 3, in Suit No. HCO/05C/2024, pending the determination of the appeal lodged to the Court of Appeal on Feb. 4,” the pleaded.

Responding, Sani Abbas, who represented the claimants and respondents, did not object to the application.

In his ruling, Justice Salisu said because of the circumstances, he granted the application and ordered that the status quo remains pending the determination of the appeal filed before the court of appeal
The judge affirmed that the court already stayed the execution of the earlier judgment of Feb. 3.

Reacting to the judgment, Ododo, the Attorney-General and the Ohinoyi said they filed an appeal against the judgment before the appellate court, challenging the decision of the court.

In their appeal, they sought the appellate court to allow the appeal and give an order setting aside the decision of the lower court.

They also asked the court to dismiss the suit of the 1st to 3rd Respondents at the trial court for lacking merit.

The appellants, however, claimed that the ruling in HCO/12c/2006 that is Exhibit 1, relied upon by the 1st to 3rd Respondents was an interlocutory ruling in respect of processing, nomination, selection and appointment of some set of persons at the time, as Ohis to the five districts of Okengwe/Okene, Eia, lhima, Adavi and Eganyi.

They further argued that the trial judge erred in law and the same occasioned a miscarriage of justice against the appellant when he assumed jurisdiction to hear and determine this instant suit when he lacked jurisdiction.