By joshua Deposed Onojie Of Ewu, Rasak Ogiefo Battles Imprisonment Proceedings As Court Declines InjunctionBy Ikhili Ebalu, Benin city
Attempts by the deposed Onojie of Ewu, Prince Rasak Ogiefo, to halt contempt proceedings against him pending before a Benin High Court in Suit No. B/457/200 met a brickwall on Thursday, August 13, when the Honourable Justice A.T. Momodu, sitting at Criminal Court 1, Benin City, declined to grant an interim injunction restraining the proceedings.
The application sought to suspend the contempt proceedings as well as an earlier order of the Benin High Court presided over by Honourable Justice Abiose Omotosho, which ordered the embattled Ewu prince to appear physically before the court on October 21 to show cause why he should not be committed to prison for alleged disobedience of the Supreme Court judgment in the Ewu kingship dispute in Appeal No. SC/147/2014, and for allegedly failing to surrender the Ewu Palace to His Royal Highness Jafaru Isesele I, described in the proceedings as the rightful successor to the Ewu royal stool.
The contempt proceedings were initiated by way of Form 49 following the earlier issuance and service of Form 48. The application was argued by Kingsley Obamogie, SAN, who led Olayiwola Afolabi, SAN, and two other counsel.
In his ruling, as contained in the Enrolment of Order in Suit No. B/185/2026, Justice Momodu stated:
“I have thoughtfully read through the applicant’s application and the legal arguments of counsel for the applicant.
“However having looked at the circumstances surrounding this application, an order of interim injunction in my view should not be granted at this point.
“I am of the opinion that the respondents be given the opportunity to respond why an interim order should not be granted.”
The decision leaves the contempt proceedings and the earlier order requiring Prince Ogiefo’s physical appearance before Justice Omotosho intact, pending further proceedings.
Justice Omotosho had, on July 1, ordered Prince Rasak Ogiefo, the deposed Onojie of Ewu, and the Permanent Secretary, Edo State Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, to appear physically before the court on October 21 to show cause why they should not be committed to prison for alleged continued disobedience of judicial decisions in the Ewu kingship dispute.
The dispute originated in Suit No. B/457/2001 and was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in Appeal No. SC/147/2014, judgment which was delivered on July 19, 2024.
Reacting to the latest suit filed by Prince Ogiefo, a senior legal practitioner, who asked not to be named, said he was familiar with the original Ewu kingship litigation, which he described as having been finally determined by the Supreme Court.
According to him, the judgment of the apex court remains binding and cannot be set aside through collateral proceedings.
He described the latest suit as “face-saving litigation”, suggesting that it may have been instituted, among other reasons, to avert or delay the prospect of Prince Ogiefo being committed to prision when he appears physically before the court on October 21.
The lawyer also alleged that the litigation could have implications for some legal practitioners who are reportedly facing disciplinary proceedings before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) over their handling of aspects of the Ewu kingship dispute as the disciplinary body was also listed as Defendants in the suit.
The senior legal practitioner said some lawyers were facing disciplinary action before the LPDC over alleged professional infractions connected with the dispute.
He added that the recent reported suspension of a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) by the disciplinary body for professional infractions “must be sending shivers down the spine” of lawyers allegedly facing disciplinary proceedings in connection with the Ewu matter.
The allegations concerning the conduct of the lawyers remain matters for determination by the appropriate disciplinary authorities and should not be construed as established professional misconduct unless and until so determined.