The Olushi Onigbesa Royal Family has asked the Lagos State High Court in Ikeja to declare that it is entitled to produce and continue to produce the Oba of Oshodi.
It seeks to restrain the Lagos State Government, its agencies and the rival Oshodi Tapa and Arota families from recognising or installing another person as the traditional ruler.
The family accused the Lagos State Government of backing rival claimants to the Oshodi traditional stool and attempting to install another Oba, despite a series of court decisions which the family said had left intact a tribunal recommendation in its favour.
The allegation is contained in suit ID/1457GCMW/2026, instituted by Prince Yaya Oseni-Agedegudu and Kabiru Eeyantan on behalf of the royal family through its counsel, Omoniyi Akinmola.
The defendants are the Lagos State Governor; Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice; Commissioner for Local Government, Chieftaincy Affairs and Rural Development; Chairman, Oshodi/Isolo Local Government Area; Chief Maroofdeen Oshodi; Chief Abdulrasak Oshodi; Hakeem Adesope; Chief Biliamin Akinola; and Adekunle Thomas.
The dispute revolves around the recommendation of a Standing Tribunal of Inquiry into Chieftaincy Matters constituted by the state government to determine whether the Baaleship of Oshodi should be upgraded to an Obaship.
The tribunal, chaired by retired Justice A.O. Silva, commenced sitting on June 1, 2005 and completed its proceedings before submitting its findings and recommendations to the Lagos State Government in 2012.
The claimants said the tribunal recommended the Olushi Onigbesa Royal Family as the family entitled to produce the Oba of Oshodi.
They maintained that attempts by rival families to overturn the recommendation had failed before the courts.
According to the claimants, the Oshodi Arota Ologun family first challenged the recommendation at the High Court, which dismissed the case in a judgment delivered on September 24, 2014.
The family appealed, but the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on March 25, 2020, with costs, while the Supreme Court subsequently dismissed its appeal on July 13, 2021, also with costs.
The claimants further cited Suit No. ID/4218GCM/2020, which was struck out by the High Court on June 10, 2022.
They also referred to Suit No. ID/3174GCMW/2016, filed by the Oshodi Tapa family, which was struck out by Justice L.A.F. Oluyemi on January 27, 2022.
Similarly, a certiorari application filed by the Oshodi Tapa and Oshodi Ologun families in Suit No. ID/6736GCMW/2023 was struck out by Justice L.A. Oluwayemi on October 17, 2024.
The claimants argued that the successive decisions did not invalidate the tribunal’s recommendation.
They alleged, however, that after the state government had commenced administrative steps to implement the recommendation, it changed its position.
The royal family specifically challenged a letter dated October 20, 2022, written by the Lagos State Attorney-General, which it said recognised the Oshodi and Arota families as entitled to produce the Oba of Oshodi.
The claimants alleged that the Attorney-General’s position was based on a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of earlier judgments concerning a 206-acre parcel of land in Oshodi.
They maintained that the earlier judgments dealt only with ownership of the 206 acres and did not determine the question of traditional rulership of the wider Olushi Onigbesa territory.
According to the claimants, Oba Olushi Onigbesa founded more than 1,000 acres covering Oshodi, Jafo, Abujalo, Dacosta, Ayeni, Ogunoloko, Ago Igbira and other settlements.
They said Oshodi Tapa, whom they identified as the progenitor of the Oshodi family, was brought to assist Olushi Onigbesa in fighting slave raiders.
The claimants alleged that Olushi Onigbesa later granted Oshodi Tapa 206 acres for farming but did not transfer ownership of the wider territory or its traditional rulership to him.
They relied on the 1957 litigation in Suit No. AB/16/1957, saying the case concerned the payment of traditional tribute, known as Isakole, over the 206-acre parcel.
The royal family argued that the judgment established the nature of the land grant but did not make Oshodi Tapa the founder of the wider territory or confer the Obaship on his descendants.
It said the matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which affirmed the decision concerning the 206 acres.
The claimants also relied on historical documents, including judgments, colonial correspondence, land agreements, chieftaincy records and intelligence reports, which they said would be tendered at trial to establish their claim to the stool.
They said the state government itself had earlier treated the family as entitled to produce the Oba.
According to them, following the tribunal’s recommendation, the Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs notified the Agedegudu Ruling House in August 2012 that it was its turn to present a candidate.
The ruling house subsequently nominated Prince Y.A. Oseni-Agedegudu in November 2013.
The claimants said the government prepared a draft Chieftaincy Declaration and a profile for the proposed Oba, while the family paid N250,000 to the state government as approval fees on August 8, 2016.
They further stated that the Joint Chieftaincy Committee of Oshodi/Isolo Local Government approved the nomination at its meeting on June 9, 2021, with subsequent correspondence sent to the local government and the Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs.
The family contended that the steps showed that the government had accepted the tribunal’s recommendation and commenced the process of installing its nominee before allegedly reversing its position.
But the Oshodi Tapa Chieftaincy Family, in its defence, urged the court to dismiss the suit, describing the claim as frivolous and an attempt to circumvent earlier judgments concerning ownership of Oshodi land.
The position was contained in a written statement on oath and amended statement of defence deposed to by the fifth defendant, Chief Maroofdeen Oshodi, a principal member of the family.
The defendant disputed the claimants’ ancestry, alleging that they were not members of the family of the Olushi Onigbesa of Igbesa, Ado-Odo, Ogun State.
He claimed that the claimants had previously identified themselves as descendants of an Olushi Onigbesa from Ile-Ife, arguing that this was different from the Onigbesa of Igbesa, Ado-Odo, known to the Oshodi Tapa family.
The defence relied heavily on the 1957 litigation, AB/16/57, arguing that the judgment established that the land now known as Oshodi was given to the progenitors of the Oshodi Tapa and sixth defendant families as an absolute gift, rather than being held under customary tenancy.
The defendant said the decision was affirmed by the then Federal Supreme Court in FSC/431/61, Sunmonu Agedegudu v. Sanni Ajenifuja and Others.
He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi and Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi and Another, reported in (2000) 7 SC (Pt. 11) 145, claiming that the Supreme Court reaffirmed the position concerning the land.
The defence also challenged the legal effect of the 2005 tribunal recommendation.
According to the defendant, the tribunal was constituted after Baale Yesufu Seidu Owoseni sought the elevation of the Baaleship to an Obaship.
He alleged that disagreements between the fifth and sixth defendant families prevented them from effectively presenting their case before the tribunal, which he claimed allowed the claimants to assert that they were descendants of Olushi Onigbesa and entitled to the stool.
The defendant further alleged that neither the fifth nor sixth defendant family was furnished with a copy of the tribunal’s recommendation.
He argued that the recommendation breached their right to fair hearing and exceeded the tribunal’s mandate by determining that the claimants were solely entitled to the stool.
The defence also relied on historical records showing that the fifth and sixth defendant families had produced successive Baales of Oshodi from the 19th century.
It listed Faremi Taraeni Ajagungbade, Ogundeyi, Kupoluyi, Asiaju, Seriki, Oke, Sanni Ajenifuja, Yekini Alimi Ajenifuja and Yesufu Seidu Owoseni among those who occupied the Baaleship between 1850 and 2005.
The defendant argued that the claimants had no record of producing a Baale of Oshodi during the period and could not rely on customary law to claim the traditional stool.
He further accused the first claimant of taking steps capable of causing a breakdown of law and order, alleging that he had attempted to make himself king over Oshodi.
The fifth defendant urged the court to dismiss the suit and award punitive costs against the claimants.