Court Halts Installation of Onisemo of Lagos Pending Determination of Suit

Wale Igbintade

The Lagos State High Court has ordered all parties to maintain status quo in the dispute over the proposed installation of a new Onisemo of Lagos, pending further proceedings in a suit challenging the selection process.

The order followed an application filed by members of the Onisemo Chieftaincy Family, who are opposing moves to install Mr. Lookman Bolaji Oluwa, also known as Lookman Noah Fagbayi, as the Onisemo of Lagos.

The claimants are Princess Olabiyi Kosoko, Mrs. Hawawu Abiodun Teluwo – suing for themselves and on behalf of the Onisemo Chieftaincy Family of Lagos – and Mr. Olusegun Adebiyi Gbolade.

The defendants include the Governor of Lagos State; the Attorney-General of the State; Oba Rilwan Akiolu I, the Oba of Lagos; the Executive Chairman of Lagos Island Local Government; the Secretary of the Chieftaincy Committee, Lagos Island Local Government; the Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs; Mr. Sodiq Abosupala; and Mr. Lookman Bolaji Oluwa.

At the hearing, counsel to the claimants, Otunba Martins Ogunleye, told the court that while the first to sixth defendants had been duly served with the originating processes, service was yet to be effected on the seventh and eighth defendants.

He subsequently moved a motion ex parte dated September 23, 2025, supported by a 22-paragraph affidavit, eight exhibits, and a written address, urging the court to grant interim reliefs.

No legal representation appeared for any of the defendants at the hearing.

Among the reliefs sought, the claimants requested an interlocutory injunction restraining the Oba of Lagos, his servants, agents, or privies from installing, coronating, or performing any installation rites on the eighth defendant as the Onisemo of Lagos, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.

In his ruling, Justice N.O. Ojuromi, held that interim injunctions are preservatory in nature and are intended to maintain the res pending the determination of a motion on notice.

He consequently ordered all parties to maintain the status quo and adjourned the matter to January 9, 2026, for a report of service on the seventh and eighth defendants, with an assurance of accelerated hearing once service is completed.

In an affidavit in support of the application, Princess Kosoko, the first claimant, deposed that she is the Secretary of the Oshokeji Ruling House of the Onisemo Chieftaincy Family of Lagos.

She stated that the suit was instituted to challenge the “purported selection” of the eighth defendant as Onisemo of Lagos, insisting that he is neither a member of the Onisemo chieftaincy family nor of the Oshokeji Ruling House, which she described as the only ruling house entitled to produce the next Onisemo.

She further averred that it was the turn of the Oshokeji Ruling House to present the next Onisemo following the death of the last title holder, Chief Lekan Adamson, in 2019, and that the third claimant was duly selected by the ruling house as the Onisemo-elect, as evidenced by an exhibit attached to the affidavit.

Princess Kosoko alleged that in May 2025, the eighth defendant invaded the Onisemo Palace at 127/129 Enu-Owa Street, Lagos, and laid claim to the stool.

She said the family promptly petitioned relevant authorities, including the governor and other defendants, disowning the eighth defendant’s claims, but alleged that no decisive action was taken.

She disclosed that a separate court action seeking pre-emptive injunctive reliefs had earlier been filed by members of the family and that letters were also written to government officials urging them to preserve the status quo.

According to her, the family was later shocked by the emergence of a letter from the third defendant allegedly conveying that the eighth defendant’s selection had been approved and gazetted.

She claimed that although the approval was signed on July 31, 2025, it was backdated to April 2025, despite the pendency of court proceedings.

Princess Kosoko warned that the actions complained of could trigger unrest within the family and the wider community, stressing that the stool of Onisemo is a traditional and cultural institution whose desecration could not be adequately remedied by monetary damages.

She maintained that the eighth defendant would suffer no loss if restrained, as he had not been formally installed, and undertook to indemnify the defendants in damages should the injunction ultimately be found to have been wrongly granted.

The matter has been adjourned to January 9, 2026, for further proceedings.