Osun royal families sue govt over traditional stool

File photo: Osun State Governor, Ademola Adeleke

Four ruling houses in Ijabe, Odo-Otin Local Government Area of Osun State, have dragged the state government before the High Court, challenging its decision to nullify the town’s 2018 amended chieftaincy declaration.

The suit also challenges the government’s approval of a new Onijabe of Ijabe while litigation over the traditional stool was pending.

The families are asking the court to set aside the Osun State Executive Council’s decision of October 23, 2026, which reportedly nullified the existing declaration and approved the appointment of Babatunde Omotosho Tajudeen as the Onijabe of Ijabeland.

The state government had, on October 24, in a statement by the Commissioner for Information and Public Enlightenment, Kolapo Alimi, announced Tajudeen’s appointment, alongside the confirmation of other traditional rulers across the state.

In a motion on notice filed in Suit No. HKK/2/2018 before the Osun State High Court, Okuku Judicial Division, the applicants urged the court to restrain the government and other relevant authorities from taking further steps to give effect to the disputed decision pending the determination of the substantive suit.

The motion, dated October 26, 2026, was filed by Maruf Adediran, R.T. Abdulateef, and O.A. Folarin of Wulaemah Chambers, Osogbo.

The applicants—Tunde Alabi, Samson Oladipupo, Ganiyu Opatola, and Sulaimon Awoyeye—represent the Olukoyo Dodo, Obadoke, Alaase, and Oloyede families, respectively.

They argued that the four families were entitled to participate in the succession process under the 2018 Amended Onijabe Chieftaincy Declaration, which they insisted remained the applicable legal instrument governing the selection and appointment of the traditional ruler.

In their application, the families asked the court to set aside the proceedings, deliberations, conclusions, and decisions of the state executive council of October 23, insofar as they relate to the declaration and the selection or approval of anyone to occupy the stool while the case remains pending.

They also sought an order directing all parties to maintain the status quo ante bellum by refraining from approving, recognising, or further recognising any person as the Onijabe of Ijabe until the court determines the matter.

Related News

• Farmer found hanging in Osun, police begin probe
• Osun to recruit road sweepers for sanitation
• No confusion, Osun will vote Accord candidates, Tinubu for president — Adeleke

The applicants specifically sought an order restraining the Odo-Otin Local Government, the Odo-Otin Local Government Chieftaincy Committee, the Osun State Governor, and the state Attorney-General from taking further action concerning the vacant stool pending the resolution of the dispute.

In a supporting affidavit, Alabi stated that the four royal families were entitled to ascend the Onijabe throne in accordance with the provisions of the 2018 amended declaration.

He traced the dispute to an earlier case, Suit No. HIK/43/97, which he said was finally determined on April 25, 2017, after proceedings spanning about 20 years.

According to the applicants, the earlier litigation involved efforts to stop the recommendation of the Okanlawon Panel, whose recommendation subsequently formed the basis of the amended chieftaincy declaration.

They stated that the Osun State Government approved and registered the declaration on July 13, 2018, pursuant to Section 4(11) of the Chiefs Law, Cap. 25, Laws of Osun State, 2002.

The declaration was subsequently published in the Osun State Government Official Gazette on July 26, 2018.

The applicants argued that the instrument remained legally binding and should continue to regulate the selection and appointment of the Onijabe until lawfully set aside.

They further disclosed that the current suit was instituted after the declaration was issued, with the claimants challenging the instrument governing the succession process.

According to the affidavit, an application for an injunction had also been filed in the pending suit, seeking to restrain the relevant parties from taking steps concerning the stool and the disputed declaration.

The applicants said the application had yet to be heard or determined when the executive council took its decision, arguing that the action amounted to usurping the judicial authority of the court by determining issues already before it.