By Olusegun Olanrewaju
A lawyer, Adeboye Sobanjo, has picked holes in the judgement of an Osogbo high court in Osun State, concerning a fundamental human rights case by his clients, Prolynx Consultancy Limited against respondents, Thirty-Three Nigeria Limited.
Sobanjo is averring error ruling, arguing that a learned judge ‘acted over his jurisdiction’ when he assumed and delivered judgment in favour of the respondent (Thirty-Three) over alleged breaches of his client’s fundamental human rights to the substantive claim of a contractual relationship between the respondent in the case that is now before an appellate court.
A statement made available to ThisNigeria at the weekend stated that the case in question pertained to “breaches in fundamental rights complained of by the respondent that is ancillary to the substantial claim of a contractual relationship between the respondent and the appellant”.
According to Sobanjo, the Osogbo court’s judgment was against “the weight of evidence” presented before it.
Sobanjo rejected the Osogbo High Court 4 judgement in a case of breach of contract over the development of a parcel of land in the Osun State capital, now presented in the appellate by the plaintiff in the suit, Prolynx Consultancy Limited, at the Court of Appeal sitting in Akure, Ondo State.
Prolynx Consultancy Limited had filed a suit through its counsel, Adeboye Sobanjo before the Osogbo high court 2 seeking an order to compel the defendants, Thirty-Three Nigeria Limited and Mr. Kunle Omisore, to comply with the terms and conditions spelled out in the Residential Houses Construction Agreement and the irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 24th September 2020 for the development of a parcel of land measuring approximately 2,790 hectares at Ilobu GRA, Olorunda Local Government Area of Osun State.
But the respondent, Thirty-Three Nigeria Limited, and Mr. Kunle Omisore filed a countersuit suit before the same court for the enforcement of his fundamental human rights.
After reviewing the case, the presiding judge, S.O Falola, in its judgment on the suit, ordered the representatives of Prolynx Consultancy Limited out of the disputed parcel of land for allegedly using hoodlums to sustain a hold on the disputed land.
He declared that “The constant use of hoodlums to prevent Mr. Omisore from having access to the property was in breach of the fundamental human rights of the applicant as enshrined in Sections 43 and 44 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria”.
But the plaintiff’s counsel, Sobanjo, rejected the judgement, stressing that the judge erred by abandoning the real issues brought before his court to adjudicate on matters of fundamental human rights, which, according to him, was irrelevant to the case before him.
The counsel argued that the crux of the respondent’s case before the trial court was about nothing else but contract and ownership of land that is outside the purview of fundamental human rights on which the judge based his judgement.
He stated that the respondent’s action before the trial court was incompetent, while the facts deposed to in his affidavit in support of the application before the trial court was at variance with the reliefs put before the court.
Sobanjo further averred that the learned trial judge ‘erred in law’ and ‘misdirected himself’ when he declared in his judgement that: “based on the above premise, I hereby hold that the contractual relationship between the applicant and the respondent, having been determined since 20th May 2022, the respondent has no right to remain on the property of the applicant. The respondent has become a trespasser since that day.”
However, the plaintiff’s counsel pointed out that the affidavit in support of the respondent’s application disclosed that there is a contractual dispute between the respondent and the appellant as to the control and possession of the land, which was the subject matter of the respondent’s application before the trial court.
He further prayed that the court of Appeal should uphold his appeal and set aside the decision of the trial court dated October 19, 2022, delivered in suit HOS/M.209/2022.
