Fuji musician Wasiu Ayinde Marshall, popularly known as KWAM 1, has withdrawn the suit he filed at the Ogun State High Court challenging steps taken towards the installation of a new Awujale of Ijebuland.
A notice of discontinuance dated 22 December and filed at the High Court in Ijebu Ode shows that Mr Ayinde formally discontinued the case against all the respondents, including Ogun State Governor Dapo Abiodun.
Other respondents to the now terminated suit were officials of the Ijebu-Ode Local Government, the state attorney general, and the Fusengbuwa Ruling House.
In the notice, the applicant said the suit was filed following correspondences from the second respondent, which he noted had since been withdrawn. He therefore asked the court to record the discontinuance and make any order it deemed fit.
Mr Ayinde, had asked the court to immediately halt steps being taken toward the installation of a new Awujale of Ijebuland.
The application was filed as an ex parte motion at High Court 2 of the Ijebu Judicial Division. The musician relied on provisions of the Ogun State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2024, constitutional guarantees of fair hearing under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, and the court’s inherent powers.
The document effectively brings an end to the legal challenge initiated by the Fuji artiste over the Awujale succession process.
Background
The withdrawal comes after the legal challenge mounted by the Fuji musician against the Awujale succession process suffered an early setback on Monday after the Ogun State High Court in Ijebu-Ode declined to issue interim orders he sought.
When the case came up before Judge A. A. Omoniyi, the applicant’s counsel, Wahab Shittu, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, pressed the court to issue an interim injunction and to fast-track the hearing of the substantive case. He argued that the urgency of the matter justified bringing the application without notice to the respondents.
ALSO READ: “Never again will I lower my standards for anyone” – Kwam1’s wife, Emmanuella sparks curiosity with cryptic post
The court however rejected that argument, the Nigerian Tribune reports.
The judge ruled that the procedure adopted by the applicant did not meet the requirements of the High Court Rules, which mandate that injunctions must be sought through motions on notice. He held that an originating summons could not replace a motion on notice and that granting interim relief in such circumstances would undermine settled legal principles.
Although Mr Shittu told the court that the action was filed in response to an alleged threat to his client’s fundamental rights, the judge held that urgency alone could not override mandatory procedural steps.
In refusing the application, Judge Omoniyi relied on binding judicial authorities, including Seven-Up Bottling Company v. Abiola, and City Express v. Lagos State Government.
The court also noted that the applicant failed to provide an undertaking as to damages, a requirement consistently described by appellate courts as essential.
“Where a procedure is laid down for making an order, that’s the only way to get the order. It is fatal to an application for an interim order to not file a motion on notice.
“Additionally, there’s no undertaking as to damages, which, in a plethora of cases, has been held to be absolutely vital. The application fails and is refused,” the judge said.
