According to a news report from Vanguard, the Kwara State government has urged the state Police Command to dismiss the petition filed by the counsel to the late Abubakar Olusola Saraki, which accused the government of contempt of court over the Ile-Arugbo land dispute. The government claims that the petition is filled with deliberate misrepresentations and falsehoods.

Previously, Dr. Akin Onigbinde, counsel to the Saraki family, had petitioned the state Commissioner of Police, Mr. Victor Olaiya, alleging a breach of court order by the state government and requesting intervention to prevent actions that could disrupt public peace in Ilorin.

In response, Barrister Ayinla Salman Jawondo SAN, counsel to the Governor of Kwara State, the Attorney General of Kwara State, and the Director General of Kwara State Bureau of Land, addressed the petition. His reaction was made available to journalists in Ilorin on Thursday.

Jawondo in the reaction titled,”RE: ALLEGED VIOLATION OF A PURPORTED COURT ORDER IN SUIT NO: KWS/112/2022; ASA INVESTMENT LIMITED & ANOR. V. GOVERNOR OF KWARA STATE & 4 ORS.” prayed in the reaction that,”Premised on the facts and the position of the law, we urge the Police to discountenance the Petition which contents are riddled with deliberate misrepresentations and falsehood. The Petition is a tall tree without roots and a mere attempt to clap with one hand.”

He explained that,”By the Rules of the Court and as settled by plethora of Decisions of our Courts, the life span of an Ex-Parte Order is a maximum of fourteen (14) days.”citing “Order 11 Rule 11 (1) & (2) of the Kwara State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2021 and 2022 and the cases of TITILAYO PLASTIC INDUSTRIES LTD. V. FAGBOLA (2019) LPELR- (SC) @ 46-52 and A.P.C. V. MESSIAH (2021) LPELR-55011 (CA) @ 14.”

He added that,”as a Government founded on and operating on basis of the Rule of Law, we gave an ORAL UNDERTAKING in Suit No: KWS/463/2019 before the Court to the effect that our clients will abide by the Ex-Parte Order of Injunction even after its fourteen (14) day maximum life span and pending the determination of the case on the basis of which, with the CONSENT of both parties, the matter was accorded accelerated hearing.

“In line with our Undertaking, our clients fully complied with the Ex-Parte Order until the Claimants/Petitioners' Suit KWS/463/2019 was eventually struck by the Court on 2nd February, 2021 for want of diligent prosecution by the Claimants.”

He noted further in the reaction that,”having been struck out, the Ex-Parte Order of injunction and the Undertaking came to an end, dead and gone, thereby, leaving our clients with the option of continuing with their proposed developments on the land.”

Jawondo however stated that” rather than file an appeal against the Order of the Court striking out their Suit No: KWS/463/2019 or apply for it to be re-listed by the Court, the Claimants/Petitioners filed a new Suit No: KWS/112/2022 on 12th March 2021 which suit was originally assigned to Honorable Justice A. O. Akinpelu who, on 30th March, 2022, on the Claimants/Petitioners' Ex-Parte application, granted them an Ex-Parte Order of Injunction restraining our clients from carrying out any form of development on the same land which is the subject of the Claimants/Petitioners' and our clients' counter-claim in the earlier Suit No: KWS/463/2019 pending before Honorable Justice A. A. Adebara (as he then was).”

He also explained that”It is settled law, by plethora of Court Decisions, that once a matter/case is transferred from one Judge to another, the legal consequence of the Order of transfer is that all proceedings before and or Orders made by the former Judge entertaining the matter/case become null and void and of no legal effect as the matter is to start denovo or afresh. “

He further said that “the administrative transfer of the case to another learned Judge of the Court below for determination during the pendency of this appeal achieved the same result.

“The effect is that the case will start denovo or afresh before another learned Judge. See, the case of Bakule v. Tanerewa Nigeria Limited (1995) 2 NWLR (pt. 380) 728 at 738 where the Court held graphically inter alia that “The effect of starting the case afresh before Adamu J is to sweep clean all previous proceedings in the case before Abdullahi J, See, Odi v. Osafile (supra). Any of the parties therefore is free to bring afresh any application including the type the subject of this appeal”

He further said that,”the Claimants/Petitioners did not at any time bring any application for injunction before Honorable A. A. Adebara CJ before whom their case is lying in the cooler owing the Claimants/Petitioners' unpreparedness to prosecute the case.

“Premised, on the above and having regard to the settled position of the law, it is crystal clear that as at today, there is no any subsisting Order of Injunction of the Court in Suit No; KWS/112/2022 and or Suit No: KWS/463/2019 and or any suit or case on which the Claimants/Petitioners' Petition can be hinged.

“The Petition is, therefore, nothing sort of premeditated, calculated and deliberate, reckless misrepresentation, effecting mischief and cheap blackmail by attention seeking litigants who lack faith in their case but merely filed same as a design to Armstrong and frustrate the development of the State having lost out in the political equations of the State since 1999.

“The befitting place for the mischievous Petition is the trash cane and we urge that it should be accordingly treated. “Jawondo said.