Oyo State Appeals Removal Of Oba Ghandi Olaoye As Soun of Ogbomoso

The Oyo State Government has filed an appeal for a judgement of the High Court that sacked Oba Ghandi Olaoye as the Soun of Ogbomoso.

Naija News reported last Wednesday that the appointment of Oba Ghandi Olaoye was overturned by the Oyo State High Court sitting in Ogbomoso.

Recalls that the Oyo State Government, on the 8th of September, 2023, announced Pastor Ghandi Olaoye as the new Soun and made him king.

Before this time, one of the contestants, Kabir Laoye, had sued Ghandi Olaoye, noting that he was not eligible to take Soun’s position.

The Oyo state High Court in Ogbomoso at the time had reportedly restrained Governor Seyi Makinde, the Attorney General of the State and Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Matters or anyone else from presenting any instrument of office in any form of ceremony or issuing certificate of installation to Olaoye until the final determination of the mandatory injunction already filed before the court.

The Areago High Chief, Sobalaje Otolorin, however, disclosed that the kingmakers were not aware of a restraining order by any court.

Justice Kareem Adedokun, while ruling on a suit marked HOG/27/2023 filed by Prince Kabir Olaoye, had nullified the selection process that produced Oba Ghandi as the Soun, and ordered the conduct of a new selection process.

However, the Oyo State government had appealed the judgement of Justice Adedokun, at the Ibadan Division of the Court of Appeal.

The state, through its lawyer, Akin Onigbinde (SAN), also sought a stay of execution of the October 25 judgment pending the outcome of the appeal.

The appellants are Governor Seyi Makinde, the Oyo State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, and the state’s Commissioner for Local Governments and Chieftaincy Matters.

The notice of appeal dated October 27 is seeking “an order setting aside the judgment of the trial court of October 25, or an order of re-trial before another judge of the Oyo State High Court.”

In the six grounds of appeal, the state government said the trial judge erred in law, maintaining that the judgment could not stand.