The Ogun State Government legal team has been accused of deliberately stalling court proceedings after the claimants in a demolition suit presented evidence of building approval, throwing the case into fresh controversy at the Ondo State High Court on Monday.
The case took a dramatic turn when the claimants, represented by Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Kotoye, filed a further affidavit exhibiting the approval of their building on September 25th. This critical document, which directly addresses the core issue in the demolition dispute, appeared to have caught the state government’s legal team off-guard.
According to Kotoye SAN, the submission of this building approval should have prompted immediate settlement discussions. Instead, the government’s legal team responded by serving a Notice of Preliminary Objection on the morning of October 13th—despite filing it on October 2nd—effectively preventing the matter from being heard.
“I had expected a smart legal team to call and invite us for a meeting on receiving our papers,” Kotoye SAN told the court, his frustration evident. “But they would rather come to lie in the open court.”
The senior advocate painted a picture of a government legal team that, faced with evidence undermining their position, resorted to procedural tactics to avoid confronting the substance of the case. He characterized the Defence as “not only incompetent by not studying their files” but also “not interested in mediation.”
The state government’s legal team, led by Director of Civil Litigation Mrs. R.B. Kadri, defended the delay in serving the preliminary objection by citing the death of Late Ogunba, whose office served as the claimants’ address within jurisdiction. Mrs. Kadri explained that Ogunba died on October 3rd, the same day they filed the objection, preventing them from effecting service.
However, Kotoye SAN dismissed this explanation as “not only lame but also unfounded,” revealing that Ogunba’s office remained operational and that he had filed a notice of change of address. “We still received processes there last week,” he stated, further undermining the Defence’s justification.
The presiding judge appeared unconvinced by the Defence’s explanations, delivering what observers described as a pointed rebuke. “If you have received this court process and looked at it, why did you not call them and start the settlement meeting?” the judge asked Mrs. Kadri directly.
The court further noted that the Defence team had been present the previous week and could have filed and served all necessary processes if they were genuinely committed to resolving the matter. “All these processes filed and served today, your team was here last week they could have done all that if you were serious and wanted this matter to move on,” the judge observed.
Kotoye SAN revealed a troubling pattern in the state government’s litigation strategy. “In the regular nature of the state, I am sure they came this morning to stall proceedings,” he stated. “Like I said earlier, I am used to these antics especially from the Solicitor General leading the team.”
The senior advocate disclosed that he had previously discussed privately with the Defence team their practice of always serving processes in court rather than through proper channels. “It is unethical for her to make such submissions,” he added, suggesting the Defence team was aware of the impropriety of their conduct.
Adding another dimension to the controversy, Kotoye SAN accused the government’s legal team of conducting a media campaign against the claimants. “We had barely left court when we began to read stories in the papers about what did not happen in court,” he revealed.
