The Ondo State Government has dismissed allegations that it approved the appointment of the Olusupare of Supare-Akoko in violation of a subsisting court order, insisting that no valid interlocutory injunction exists restraining it from carrying out its statutory responsibilities.
In a statement issued on Friday by the Office of the Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, the government described claims that it acted in defiance of a court order as misleading, maintaining that its decision was consistent with the law and the orders of the court.
According to the statement, the only order before the government is the ruling of the High Court delivered on September 9, 2024, which granted an interim injunction pending the hearing of a motion on notice.
The Attorney General explained that an interim injunction is temporary in nature and expires once the substantive application is heard, distinguishing it from an interlocutory injunction, which is granted after hearing the parties and remains in force until the determination of the case.
The statement cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Kotoye v. Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) as authority for the distinction between interim and interlocutory injunctions.
The government challenged anyone claiming the existence of a subsisting order restraining it from approving the traditional ruler to produce such an order, stressing that legal obligations must be founded on the actual pronouncements of the court rather than public assertions.
It further argued that the mere institution of a lawsuit does not automatically suspend governmental functions, noting that while the doctrine of lis pendens protects the subject matter of litigation, it does not prevent the government from performing its statutory duties unless expressly restrained by a competent court.
The Attorney General’s office reaffirmed the state’s commitment to obeying every valid and subsisting court order, including the final judgment that will be delivered in Suit No. HKA/32/2024.
It added that the government would neither abandon its lawful responsibilities nor act in defiance of any valid judicial directive, insisting that the rule of law requires adherence to the actual decisions of the courts rather than interpretations or allegations.
