The Kogi State High Court on Thursday ordered a stay of execution of the judgment sacking the Ohinoyi of Ebiraland, Ahmed-Anaje.

Justice Umar Salisu issued the order following an application for a stay of execution on his earlier judgment, which removed Mr Ahmed-Anaje as Ohinoyi of Ebiraland.

The traditional ruler was removed by Justice Salisu in his judgment in a case filed by Daudu Adeku-Ojiah, Hussain Yusuf and Abdulrahaam Suberu, challenging the Ohinoyi’s appointment by the former Governor Yahaya Bello.

The state attorney general, Muiz Abdullahi (SAN), and the Ohinoyi, who applied for a stay of execution, had told the court that they had filed an appeal before the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal.

Mr Abdullahi prayed the court to grant an order for a stay of execution in the judgment delivered on February 3 in Suit No. HCO/05C/2024, pending the determination of the appeal lodged to the appellate court.

“We also pray for any such orders or other orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of the application,’’ he pleaded.

Responding, Sani Abbas, who represented the claimants/respondents, did not object to the application.

In his ruling, Justice Salisu granted the prayer.

”In view of the circumstance, the application is hereby granted. The order is that the status quo remains pending the determination of the appeal filed before the court of appeal.

“The defendants have argued that there are still live issues pending before this court and the appeal court in relation to Suit No.HCO/12C/2006.

”It is therefore logical that all issues connected to these cases, the instant case inclusive, should be preserved until the outcome of the case is determined either by this court or Court of Appeal,” he held.

In its appeal, the state government prayed the appellate court to give an order setting aside the lower court’s decision.

The state also prayed the court to dismiss the suit of the first to third respondents at the trial court for lacking in merit.

The appellants, however, claimed that the ruling in HCO/12c/2006, that is, Exhibit 1, relied upon by the first to third respondents was an interlocutory ruling in respect of processing, nomination, selection and appointment of some set of persons at the time, as Ohis to the five districts of Okengwe/Okene, Eia, lhima, Adavi and Eganyi.

He added that the trial judge erred in law and reached a perverse decision when he heavily relied on Exhibit P.O 4 annexed to an “Affidavit of Facts in Response to the First, Second and Third Defendants Notice of Preliminary Objection.”

(NAN)