Court affirms Musa-Adebamowo as family head for Epe ruling house by

A Lagos High court  sitting in Epe has restrained Julius Lawal from presenting or parading himself or acting in the capacity of the head of ...

A Lagos High court sitting in Epe has restrained Julius Lawal from presenting or parading himself or acting in the capacity of the head of Ewade Ruling House of Igbooye, Epe.

The court also affirmed Otunba Musa-Adebamowo as head of Ewade Ruling House of Igbooye, Eredo-Epe.

Justice Animahun issued the order of interlocutory injunction  while ruling in a motion on notice brought before him by the claimant/applicant, Otunba Musa-Adebamowo, through his counsel, Hassan Fajimite, Babs Animashaun and Kemi Yusuf.

The court also made an order of interlocutory injunction restraining Lawal, the defendant, his agents, servants, privies “from interfering with, disturbing or preventing the claimant from performance of his duties and functions and exercise of the power and full enjoyment of rights of the claimant as the head of the Ewade Ruling House of Igbooye, pending the final determination of the substantive suit.”

The court ordered parties to maintain status quo, prior to the commencement of hostilities on sale of family properties pending the final determination of the substantive suit.

Justice Animahun held that the law favours the claimant to continue to act as the head of the family pending determination of the substantive suit.

The claimant prayed for an order of the court nullifying all the actions and activities, including any document executed by the defendant in the capacity of the head of Ewade Ruling House of Igbooye, Eredo-Epe; an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from parading himself and or presenting himself or allowing himself to be paraded or presented as the head of Ewade Ruling House of Igbooye, Eredo-Epe and a general damages of N10 million against the defendant.

In granting the order of interlocutory injunction, the court held that the law is well settled and it is to the effect that it is to the maintenance of the status quo prior to the commencement of hostility.

Justice Animahun held that the law favours the claimant to continue to act as the head of the family pending the determination of the substantive suit.

“The balance of convenience does not favour both sides as it affects the alienation of properties. Where this is the situation, the status quo must be ordered to be maintained,” the court ordered.