Keyamo Petitions Lagos State over Plans to Demolish Property of Muiz Banire‘s Mum


Ugo Aliogo
Counsel to Alhaja Sarat Banire, and head of the Keyamo chambers, Festus Keyamo, has challenged the decision of the Lagos State Government to demolish the property of their client located at No, 24a, Remi Fani-Kayode Street, GRA, Ikeja.
In a petition to the Attorney General and Commissioner of Justice, Lagos State titled: NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF COURT ACTION IN RESPECT OF PLANS TO DEMOLISH PROPERTY OF ALHAJA SARAT BANIRE:

REQUEST FOR STAY OF FURTHER ACTION with a copy made available to THISDAY yesterday, head of the Chamber, Festus Keyamo (SAN) drew his attention to the pendency of a Suit No. FHC/L/CS1736/2017: Alhaja Sarat Banire v. Attorney General of the Federation and Minster for Justice & 3 Ors. and a Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction to restrain the state government from carrying out the planned demolition.

The letter also stated that it is imperative to realise that the pendency of the above-mentioned suit necessitates that all parties must maintain the status quo and not to engage in any act that would foist a fait accompli (state of helplessness) on the Court.

It further stated that the above point was emphasised by the Court of Appeal in the case of Ezegbu v. F.A.T.B. [1991] 1 NWLR (Pt. 220) 669 at 725 para Cwhere Tobi, JCA (as he then was) relying on the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Governor of Lagos State v. Chief Ojukwu [1986] 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621.

Keyamo in the letter noted that the decision held that: “Those parties should not embark upon self-help when a matter is before a Court of law. Since the successful act of self-help will certainly render subsequent successful decision nugatory, parties must refrain from it at all time.

“Therefore, once a party is aware of a pending Court process and whether a Court has given a specific injunctive order or not, parties are bound to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the Court process.
“They should on no account resort to self-help. Whenever such a situation arises, the court must invoke its disciplinary jurisdiction to curb the excesses of a recalcitrant party. This position was further reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of F.A.T.B. v. Ezegbu [1992] 9 NWLR (Pt. 264) 132 at page 147 paragraph B, when the apex Court held thus:

“As shown in Ojukwu’s case supra, the plaintiffs, having been put on notice of the defendant’s appeal and his motion to set aside the order of extra-ordinary general meeting ordered to be held by the Federal High Court, they are duty bound to hold on until the hearing and disposal of the motion. Instead, they went ahead and held the meeting, taking far reaching decisions affecting the defendants.”

The letter urged the state Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, and senior members of the Bar to prevail on the state government, to desist from any further interference with their client’s property pending the hearing and determination of the motion for interlocutory injunction in the above mentioned matter.