The Lagos State High Court sitting in Ikeja has invalidated the appointment and installation of Prince Bayo Iginla as the Olu of Iju Ishaga, citing a wilful breach of an existing court order. Justice (Dr) L.A.M. Folami, delivering a decisive ruling, condemned the installation as a direct affront to judicial authority and due process.
The Claimants, Chief Adams Akande Balogun, Mr Bashiru Alamu Balogun, and Mr Rasheed Adewole Balogun representing the Arayomi Aiyeteru Ruling Family, had gone to court asserting their right to produce the next traditional ruler of Iju Ishaga. They argued that the recent installation violated a subsisting order made on December 18, 2024, which directed all parties to maintain the status quo.
Despite the order, the Lagos State Executive Council proceeded to approve and recognise Prince Iginla’s installation, which was carried out while the suit was still pending. This prompted the Claimants to return to court with a Motion on Notice filed on December 31, 2024, asking for the appointment to be nullified.
Justice Folami, ruling on the matter, stated unequivocally that the Defendants acted in “total disobedience” of the court’s directive. She found that the 1st Defendant, Chief Isaac Kolawole Akinbami, had “stolen a match” on the Claimants, effectively undermining the fairness of the judicial process.
In a stern application of the law, the court set aside the State Government’s approval, nullified the installation ceremony, and barred Prince Iginla from parading himself as the Olu of Iju Ishaga. Additionally, the court restrained all Government officials from recognising the installation or disbursing any benefits tied to the title.
Citing key precedents, including Statoil (Nig.) Ltd v Star Deep Waters Petroleum Ltd and NDIC v Savannah Bank, Justice Folami emphasised that mandatory injunctions are warranted where litigants attempt to pre-empt court decisions by rushing through questionable acts during trial.
The judgement, delivered with finality and clarity, not only underscores the importance of respecting the Judiciary in chieftaincy matters, but also serves as a caution to public office holders and traditional institutions that the rule of law must prevail, above executive fiat or customary pressure.