Don’t Overstretch Jurisdiction of Vacation Judges

The bid by two men, Abiodun Ariori and Tajudeen Akanbi (representatives of the family of late Chief Mojisola Cole) to obtain an interim injunction to restrain NASCO Town Ltd from exercising possessory rights over an expanse of land located at Abule Oshun in Ojo Local Government Area of Lagos State failed last Thursday, as the Vacation Judge, Hon. Justice Aishat Opesanwo directed them back to the substantive Court (Hon Justice M. A. Savage) to continue further proceedings in the case after the vacation.

Justice Opesanwo told Lawyers present in her court that there’s no sufficient time for her to conduct all the cases, as the end of vacation was imminent. “Today is the last day this court will sit. Tomorrow is Friday, and Monday is another Public Holiday. A new legal year resumes next week, and I will ask all of you to go back to the substantive courts originally handling your cases”, she said.

The Judge decried the practice of Lawyers invoking the jurisdiction of vacation Judges, in respect of matters that are devoid of any element of urgency as required by the rules. She warned that cases that ought to come before vacation courts, are ones that are urgent in nature. “It’s like a doctor handling an emergency surgery. Many of the cases you filed here, are not emergency cases. You file frivolous applications, and get orders that may conflict with that of the substantive court. When Judges are blamed for conflicting orders, no one blames Lawyers who file conflicting applications. Go back to your substantive courts, and handle your cases there”, the Judge said.

The Defendants had approached the vacation Judge for an interim injunction against the Claimant (NASCO), despite the fact that there is a subsisting interlocutory injunction in favour of NASCO by the substantive court, which had restrained the Defendants and their agents from interfering with the land.

In the Defendants’ vacation processes filed by Hussain Tijani comprising of a 19-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Tajudeen Akanbi, the Defendants claimed that the land belongs to them and that NASCO should be restrained from exercising possessory right over the land.

Meanwhile, on May 16, 2024, Hon. Justice Savage (the substantive court hearing the matter) had granted an interlocutory injunction in favour of the Claimants (NASCO), restraining the Defendants from carrying out any act of ownership on the land.  

Despite being aware of the matter since 2020, the Defendants only filed their Defence in 2024. NASCO’s Counsel, Chief Anthony George Ikoli, SAN, therefore, applied to the Court for an order of injunction to restrain the Defendants from such acts pending the determination of the suit. After carefully considering the evidence of the parties and arguments canvassed by their Counsel, Justice Savage on May 16, granted an injunction restraining the Defendants from continuing construction work or exercising acts of ownership over the land, pending the determination of the suit. 

The Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal dated May 24. 2024. However, the appeal has not been entered, neither has there been a compilation of records.