The Olushi Onigbesa Royal Family has accused the Lagos State Government of supporting rival claimants to the Oshodi traditional stool and attempting to install another Oba, despite a series of court decisions that the family says have left a tribunal recommendation in its favour intact.The allegation is contained in court documents filed before the Lagos State High Court, sitting in Ikeja, in Suit No. ID/1457GCMW/2026, instituted by Prince Yaya Oseni-Agedegudu and Kabiru Eeyantan on behalf of the royal family, through their counsel, Omoniyi Akinmola.The defendants in the suit are the Lagos State governor; attorney general and commissioner for justice; the commissioner for local government, chieftancy affairs and rural development; Chairman Oshodi/Isolo Local Government Area, Chief Maroofdeen Oshodi; Chief Abdulrasak Oshodi, Hakeem Adesope, (for themselves and on behalf of Oshodi family of Oshodi Palace, Oshodi Court, Oshodi Street, Epetedo, Lagos Island), Chief Biliamin Akinola, and Adekunle Thomas, (for themselves and on behalf of the Arota family of Oshodi), as first to sixth defendants.The claimants ask the court to declare them the family entitled to produce and continue to produce the Oba of Oshodi, and 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 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 judgement 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 the High Court struck out on June 10, 2022.They also referred to Suit No. ID/3174GCMW/2016, filed by the Oshodi Tapa family, which Justice L.A.F. Oluyemi struck out on January 27, 2022.Similarly, a certiorari application filed by the Oshodi Tapa and Oshodi Ologun families in Suit No. Justice L.A. Oluwayemi struck out ID/6736GCMW/2023 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 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 the ownership of the 206 acres and did not determine the question of the 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.Related NewsNBA resisted attempts to interfere with its independence – OsigweAwujale: Court reassigns ruling house suit over stalled selectionLASG begins phased activation of Imota industrial hubThe claimants also relied on historical documents, including judgments, colonial correspondence, land agreements, chieftaincy records, and intelligence reports, which they said they would tender 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, and that it sent subsequent correspondence to the local government and the Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs.The family contended that those 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. The allegation is contained in court documents filed before the Lagos State High Court, sitting in Ikeja, in Suit No. ID/1457GCMW/2026, instituted by Prince Yaya Oseni-Agedegudu and Kabiru Eeyantan on behalf of the royal family, through their counsel, Omoniyi Akinmola.The defendants in the suit are the Lagos State governor; attorney general and commissioner for justice; the commissioner for local government, chieftancy affairs and rural development; Chairman Oshodi/Isolo Local Government Area, Chief Maroofdeen Oshodi; Chief Abdulrasak Oshodi, Hakeem Adesope, (for themselves and on behalf of Oshodi family of Oshodi Palace, Oshodi Court, Oshodi Street, Epetedo, Lagos Island), Chief Biliamin Akinola, and Adekunle Thomas, (for themselves and on behalf of the Arota family of Oshodi), as first to sixth defendants.The claimants ask the court to declare them the family entitled to produce and continue to produce the Oba of Oshodi, and 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 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 judgement 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 the High Court struck out on June 10, 2022.They also referred to Suit No. ID/3174GCMW/2016, filed by the Oshodi Tapa family, which Justice L.A.F. Oluyemi struck out on January 27, 2022.Similarly, a certiorari application filed by the Oshodi Tapa and Oshodi Ologun families in Suit No. Justice L.A. Oluwayemi struck out ID/6736GCMW/2023 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 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 the ownership of the 206 acres and did not determine the question of the 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.Related NewsNBA resisted attempts to interfere with its independence – OsigweAwujale: Court reassigns ruling house suit over stalled selectionLASG begins phased activation of Imota industrial hubThe claimants also relied on historical documents, including judgments, colonial correspondence, land agreements, chieftaincy records, and intelligence reports, which they said they would tender 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, and that it sent subsequent correspondence to the local government and the Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs.The family contended that those 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. The defendants in the suit are the Lagos State governor; attorney general and commissioner for justice; the commissioner for local government, chieftancy affairs and rural development; Chairman Oshodi/Isolo Local Government Area, Chief Maroofdeen Oshodi; Chief Abdulrasak Oshodi, Hakeem Adesope, (for themselves and on behalf of Oshodi family of Oshodi Palace, Oshodi Court, Oshodi Street, Epetedo, Lagos Island), Chief Biliamin Akinola, and Adekunle Thomas, (for themselves and on behalf of the Arota family of Oshodi), as first to sixth defendants.The claimants ask the court to declare them the family entitled to produce and continue to produce the Oba of Oshodi, and 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 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 judgement 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 the High Court struck out on June 10, 2022.They also referred to Suit No. ID/3174GCMW/2016, filed by the Oshodi Tapa family, which Justice L.A.F. Oluyemi struck out on January 27, 2022.Similarly, a certiorari application filed by the Oshodi Tapa and Oshodi Ologun families in Suit No. Justice L.A. Oluwayemi struck out ID/6736GCMW/2023 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 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 the ownership of the 206 acres and did not determine the question of the 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.Related NewsNBA resisted attempts to interfere with its independence – OsigweAwujale: Court reassigns ruling house suit over stalled selectionLASG begins phased activation of Imota industrial hubThe claimants also relied on historical documents, including judgments, colonial correspondence, land agreements, chieftaincy records, and intelligence reports, which they said they would tender 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, and that it sent subsequent correspondence to the local government and the Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs.The family contended that those 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. The claimants ask the court to declare them the family entitled to produce and continue to produce the Oba of Oshodi, and 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 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 judgement 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 the High Court struck out on June 10, 2022.They also referred to Suit No. ID/3174GCMW/2016, filed by the Oshodi Tapa family, which Justice L.A.F. Oluyemi struck out on January 27, 2022.Similarly, a certiorari application filed by the Oshodi Tapa and Oshodi Ologun families in Suit No. Justice L.A. Oluwayemi struck out ID/6736GCMW/2023 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 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 the ownership of the 206 acres and did not determine the question of the 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.Related NewsNBA resisted attempts to interfere with its independence – OsigweAwujale: Court reassigns ruling house suit over stalled selectionLASG begins phased activation of Imota industrial hubThe claimants also relied on historical documents, including judgments, colonial correspondence, land agreements, chieftaincy records, and intelligence reports, which they said they would tender 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, and that it sent subsequent correspondence to the local government and the Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs.The family contended that those 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. 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 judgement 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 the High Court struck out on June 10, 2022.They also referred to Suit No. ID/3174GCMW/2016, filed by the Oshodi Tapa family, which Justice L.A.F. Oluyemi struck out on January 27, 2022.Similarly, a certiorari application filed by the Oshodi Tapa and Oshodi Ologun families in Suit No. Justice L.A. Oluwayemi struck out ID/6736GCMW/2023 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 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 the ownership of the 206 acres and did not determine the question of the 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.Related NewsNBA resisted attempts to interfere with its independence – OsigweAwujale: Court reassigns ruling house suit over stalled selectionLASG begins phased activation of Imota industrial hubThe claimants also relied on historical documents, including judgments, colonial correspondence, land agreements, chieftaincy records, and intelligence reports, which they said they would tender 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, and that it sent subsequent correspondence to the local government and the Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs.The family contended that those 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. 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 judgement 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 the High Court struck out on June 10, 2022.They also referred to Suit No. ID/3174GCMW/2016, filed by the Oshodi Tapa family, which Justice L.A.F. Oluyemi struck out on January 27, 2022.Similarly, a certiorari application filed by the Oshodi Tapa and Oshodi Ologun families in Suit No. Justice L.A. Oluwayemi struck out ID/6736GCMW/2023 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 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 the ownership of the 206 acres and did not determine the question of the 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.Related NewsNBA resisted attempts to interfere with its independence – OsigweAwujale: Court reassigns ruling house suit over stalled selectionLASG begins phased activation of Imota industrial hubThe claimants also relied on historical documents, including judgments, colonial correspondence, land agreements, chieftaincy records, and intelligence reports, which they said they would tender 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, and that it sent subsequent correspondence to the local government and the Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs.The family contended that those 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. 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 judgement 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 the High Court struck out on June 10, 2022.They also referred to Suit No. ID/3174GCMW/2016, filed by the Oshodi Tapa family, which Justice L.A.F. Oluyemi struck out on January 27, 2022.Similarly, a certiorari application filed by the Oshodi Tapa and Oshodi Ologun families in Suit No. Justice L.A. Oluwayemi struck out ID/6736GCMW/2023 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 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 the ownership of the 206 acres and did not determine the question of the 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.Related NewsNBA resisted attempts to interfere with its independence – OsigweAwujale: Court reassigns ruling house suit over stalled selectionLASG begins phased activation of Imota industrial hubThe claimants also relied on historical documents, including judgments, colonial correspondence, land agreements, chieftaincy records, and intelligence reports, which they said they would tender 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, and that it sent subsequent correspondence to the local government and the Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs.The family contended that those 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. 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 judgement 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 the High Court struck out on June 10, 2022.They also referred to Suit No. ID/3174GCMW/2016, filed by the Oshodi Tapa family, which Justice L.A.F. Oluyemi struck out on January 27, 2022.Similarly, a certiorari application filed by the Oshodi Tapa and Oshodi Ologun families in Suit No. Justice L.A. Oluwayemi struck out ID/6736GCMW/2023 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 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 the ownership of the 206 acres and did not determine the question of the 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.Related NewsNBA resisted attempts to interfere with its independence – OsigweAwujale: Court reassigns ruling house suit over stalled selectionLASG begins phased activation of Imota industrial hubThe claimants also relied on historical documents, including judgments, colonial correspondence, land agreements, chieftaincy records, and intelligence reports, which they said they would tender 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, and that it sent subsequent correspondence to the local government and the Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs.The family contended that those 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. According to the claimants, the Oshodi Arota Ologun family first challenged the recommendation at the High Court, which dismissed the case in a judgement 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 the High Court struck out on June 10, 2022.They also referred to Suit No. ID/3174GCMW/2016, filed by the Oshodi Tapa family, which Justice L.A.F. Oluyemi struck out on January 27, 2022.Similarly, a certiorari application filed by the Oshodi Tapa and Oshodi Ologun families in Suit No. Justice L.A. Oluwayemi struck out ID/6736GCMW/2023 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 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 the ownership of the 206 acres and did not determine the question of the 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.Related NewsNBA resisted attempts to interfere with its independence – OsigweAwujale: Court reassigns ruling house suit over stalled selectionLASG begins phased activation of Imota industrial hubThe claimants also relied on historical documents, including judgments, colonial correspondence, land agreements, chieftaincy records, and intelligence reports, which they said they would tender 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, and that it sent subsequent correspondence to the local government and the Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs.The family contended that those 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. 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 the High Court struck out on June 10, 2022.They also referred to Suit No. ID/3174GCMW/2016, filed by the Oshodi Tapa family, which Justice L.A.F. Oluyemi struck out on January 27, 2022.Similarly, a certiorari application filed by the Oshodi Tapa and Oshodi Ologun families in Suit No. Justice L.A. Oluwayemi struck out ID/6736GCMW/2023 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 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 the ownership of the 206 acres and did not determine the question of the 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.Related NewsNBA resisted attempts to interfere with its independence – OsigweAwujale: Court reassigns ruling house suit over stalled selectionLASG begins phased activation of Imota industrial hubThe claimants also relied on historical documents, including judgments, colonial correspondence, land agreements, chieftaincy records, and intelligence reports, which they said they would tender 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, and that it sent subsequent correspondence to the local government and the Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs.The family contended that those 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. The claimants further cited Suit No. ID/4218GCM/2020, which the High Court struck out on June 10, 2022.They also referred to Suit No. ID/3174GCMW/2016, filed by the Oshodi Tapa family, which Justice L.A.F. Oluyemi struck out on January 27, 2022.Similarly, a certiorari application filed by the Oshodi Tapa and Oshodi Ologun families in Suit No. Justice L.A. Oluwayemi struck out ID/6736GCMW/2023 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 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 the ownership of the 206 acres and did not determine the question of the 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.Related NewsNBA resisted attempts to interfere with its independence – OsigweAwujale: Court reassigns ruling house suit over stalled selectionLASG begins phased activation of Imota industrial hubThe claimants also relied on historical documents, including judgments, colonial correspondence, land agreements, chieftaincy records, and intelligence reports, which they said they would tender 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, and that it sent subsequent correspondence to the local government and the Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs.The family contended that those 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. They also referred to Suit No. ID/3174GCMW/2016, filed by the Oshodi Tapa family, which Justice L.A.F. Oluyemi struck out on January 27, 2022.Similarly, a certiorari application filed by the Oshodi Tapa and Oshodi Ologun families in Suit No. Justice L.A. Oluwayemi struck out ID/6736GCMW/2023 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 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 the ownership of the 206 acres and did not determine the question of the 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.Related NewsNBA resisted attempts to interfere with its independence – OsigweAwujale: Court reassigns ruling house suit over stalled selectionLASG begins phased activation of Imota industrial hubThe claimants also relied on historical documents, including judgments, colonial correspondence, land agreements, chieftaincy records, and intelligence reports, which they said they would tender 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, and that it sent subsequent correspondence to the local government and the Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs.The family contended that those 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. Similarly, a certiorari application filed by the Oshodi Tapa and Oshodi Ologun families in Suit No. Justice L.A. Oluwayemi struck out ID/6736GCMW/2023 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 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 the ownership of the 206 acres and did not determine the question of the 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.Related NewsNBA resisted attempts to interfere with its independence – OsigweAwujale: Court reassigns ruling house suit over stalled selectionLASG begins phased activation of Imota industrial hubThe claimants also relied on historical documents, including judgments, colonial correspondence, land agreements, chieftaincy records, and intelligence reports, which they said they would tender 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, and that it sent subsequent correspondence to the local government and the Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs.The family contended that those 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. 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 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 the ownership of the 206 acres and did not determine the question of the 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.Related NewsNBA resisted attempts to interfere with its independence – OsigweAwujale: Court reassigns ruling house suit over stalled selectionLASG begins phased activation of Imota industrial hubThe claimants also relied on historical documents, including judgments, colonial correspondence, land agreements, chieftaincy records, and intelligence reports, which they said they would tender 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, and that it sent subsequent correspondence to the local government and the Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs.The family contended that those 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. 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 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 the ownership of the 206 acres and did not determine the question of the 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.Related NewsNBA resisted attempts to interfere with its independence – OsigweAwujale: Court reassigns ruling house suit over stalled selectionLASG begins phased activation of Imota industrial hubThe claimants also relied on historical documents, including judgments, colonial correspondence, land agreements, chieftaincy records, and intelligence reports, which they said they would tender 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, and that it sent subsequent correspondence to the local government and the Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs.The family contended that those 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. The royal family specifically challenged a letter dated October 20, 2022, written by the Lagos State Attorney General, which 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 the ownership of the 206 acres and did not determine the question of the 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.Related NewsNBA resisted attempts to interfere with its independence – OsigweAwujale: Court reassigns ruling house suit over stalled selectionLASG begins phased activation of Imota industrial hubThe claimants also relied on historical documents, including judgments, colonial correspondence, land agreements, chieftaincy records, and intelligence reports, which they said they would tender 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, and that it sent subsequent correspondence to the local government and the Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs.The family contended that those 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. 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 the ownership of the 206 acres and did not determine the question of the 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.Related NewsNBA resisted attempts to interfere with its independence – OsigweAwujale: Court reassigns ruling house suit over stalled selectionLASG begins phased activation of Imota industrial hubThe claimants also relied on historical documents, including judgments, colonial correspondence, land agreements, chieftaincy records, and intelligence reports, which they said they would tender 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, and that it sent subsequent correspondence to the local government and the Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs.The family contended that those 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. They maintained that the earlier judgments dealt only with the ownership of the 206 acres and did not determine the question of the 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.Related NewsNBA resisted attempts to interfere with its independence – OsigweAwujale: Court reassigns ruling house suit over stalled selectionLASG begins phased activation of Imota industrial hubThe claimants also relied on historical documents, including judgments, colonial correspondence, land agreements, chieftaincy records, and intelligence reports, which they said they would tender 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, and that it sent subsequent correspondence to the local government and the Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs.The family contended that those 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. 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.Related NewsNBA resisted attempts to interfere with its independence – OsigweAwujale: Court reassigns ruling house suit over stalled selectionLASG begins phased activation of Imota industrial hubThe claimants also relied on historical documents, including judgments, colonial correspondence, land agreements, chieftaincy records, and intelligence reports, which they said they would tender 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, and that it sent subsequent correspondence to the local government and the Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs.The family contended that those 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. 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.Related NewsNBA resisted attempts to interfere with its independence – OsigweAwujale: Court reassigns ruling house suit over stalled selectionLASG begins phased activation of Imota industrial hubThe claimants also relied on historical documents, including judgments, colonial correspondence, land agreements, chieftaincy records, and intelligence reports, which they said they would tender 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, and that it sent subsequent correspondence to the local government and the Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs.The family contended that those 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. 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.Related NewsNBA resisted attempts to interfere with its independence – OsigweAwujale: Court reassigns ruling house suit over stalled selectionLASG begins phased activation of Imota industrial hubThe claimants also relied on historical documents, including judgments, colonial correspondence, land agreements, chieftaincy records, and intelligence reports, which they said they would tender 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, and that it sent subsequent correspondence to the local government and the Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs.The family contended that those 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. 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.Related NewsNBA resisted attempts to interfere with its independence – OsigweAwujale: Court reassigns ruling house suit over stalled selectionLASG begins phased activation of Imota industrial hubThe claimants also relied on historical documents, including judgments, colonial correspondence, land agreements, chieftaincy records, and intelligence reports, which they said they would tender 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, and that it sent subsequent correspondence to the local government and the Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs.The family contended that those 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. 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.Related NewsNBA resisted attempts to interfere with its independence – OsigweAwujale: Court reassigns ruling house suit over stalled selectionLASG begins phased activation of Imota industrial hubThe claimants also relied on historical documents, including judgments, colonial correspondence, land agreements, chieftaincy records, and intelligence reports, which they said they would tender 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, and that it sent subsequent correspondence to the local government and the Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs.The family contended that those 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. It said the matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which affirmed the decision concerning the 206 acres.Related NewsNBA resisted attempts to interfere with its independence – OsigweAwujale: Court reassigns ruling house suit over stalled selectionLASG begins phased activation of Imota industrial hubThe claimants also relied on historical documents, including judgments, colonial correspondence, land agreements, chieftaincy records, and intelligence reports, which they said they would tender 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, and that it sent subsequent correspondence to the local government and the Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs.The family contended that those 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. The claimants also relied on historical documents, including judgments, colonial correspondence, land agreements, chieftaincy records, and intelligence reports, which they said they would tender 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, and that it sent subsequent correspondence to the local government and the Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs.The family contended that those 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. 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, and that it sent subsequent correspondence to the local government and the Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs.The family contended that those 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. 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, and that it sent subsequent correspondence to the local government and the Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs.The family contended that those 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. 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, and that it sent subsequent correspondence to the local government and the Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs.The family contended that those 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. 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, and that it sent subsequent correspondence to the local government and the Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs.The family contended that those 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. They further stated that the Joint Chieftaincy Committee of Oshodi/Isolo Local Government approved the nomination at its meeting on June 9, 2021, and that it sent subsequent correspondence to the local government and the Commissioner for Local Government and Community Affairs.The family contended that those 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. The family contended that those 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. 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 & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. The defendant said the decision was affirmed by the then Federal Supreme Court in FSC/431/61, Sunmonu Agedegudu v. Sanni Ajenifuja & Others.He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. He also cited SC/53/1995, Dr Rasaki Oshodi & Others v. Yisa Eyifunmi & 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 a 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. 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 a 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. 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 a 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. 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 a 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. 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 a 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. He argued that the recommendation breached their right to a 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. The fifth defendant urged the court to dismiss the suit and award punitive costs against the claimants.