Appeal Court Nullifies Oniro Injunction, Faults Contempt Proceedings Against Monarch

By Solanke Ayomideji Taiwo

Court of Appeal Sets Aside 2014 High Court Orders in Long-Running Ogun Chieftaincy Dispute
The Court of Appeal sitting in Ibadan has overturned a series of controversial rulings delivered by the Ogun State High Court in the protracted kingship tussle over the Oniro of Iro stool, declaring that the lower court acted improperly by restraining an already installed monarch from functioning as king.


In a unanimous judgment delivered on Tuesday, April 28, 2026, the appellate court held that the interlocutory orders issued against Mr. Najeem Alani Aromaye, the Appellant, were wrongly granted and had the effect of prejudging the substantive issues in dispute.


The three-man panel of justices, led by Justice Ridwan Maiwada Abdullahi, with Justices Gabriel Omoniyi Kolawole and Abdu Dogo concurring, allowed the appeal and set aside the rulings of the High Court delivered on September 15, 2014.


The appeal, marked CA/389/2016, arose from the contentious battle over the traditional stool of the Oniro of Iro in Obafemi/Owode Local Government Area of Ogun State.

Installed Before Injunction
According to the Court of Appeal, evidence before the court showed that at the time the High Court restrained Aromaye from parading himself as the Oniro of Iro, he had already been formally installed and recognized by the Ogun State Government.


The appellate court noted that the appellant had not only received his appointment letter and Instrument of Office but was also undergoing the traditional “Ipebi” seclusion rites associated with ascension to the throne.
The documents relied upon included the appointment letter from the Ogun State Ministry of Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs and the Instrument of Office dated August 21 and September 2, 2014 respectively.


Justice Kolawole, who delivered the lead judgment, held that the lower court’s restraining order effectively tampered with the existing status quo rather than preserving it.

The court stressed that interlocutory injunctions are meant to preserve the subject matter of litigation pending final determination and not to confer advantage on one party or determine rights prematurely.

“The restraining order had the tendency to pre-empt the substantive issue in controversy,” the court held, adding that the High Court failed to exercise judicial restraint in a matter of such sensitive traditional significance.

Court Warns Against Prejudging Cases
The appellate court reiterated the settled principle that courts must avoid delving into the merits of substantive disputes while deciding interlocutory applications.
Citing several judicial authorities, including Agwu v. Julius Berger (Nig.) Ltd. and Akinrinmisi v. Maersk (Nig.) Ltd., the court emphasized that appellate intervention in interlocutory matters is strictly limited to examining whether the lower court exercised its discretion properly.

Justice Kolawole observed that instead of issuing orders capable of freezing the rights of parties, the lower court ought to have preserved the existing situation and accelerated hearing of the substantive suit.

The court further criticized the High Court for continuing with contempt proceedings against the appellant while the validity of the underlying order was already under appellate challenge.

Contempt Proceedings Declared Improper
In one of the most significant aspects of the judgment, the Court of Appeal condemned the continuation of committal proceedings against Aromaye despite the pending appeal challenging the very order alleged to have been disobeyed.

The court held that punishing a party for contempt under an order already under appellate scrutiny undermines the judicial process and risks miscarriage of justice.
“It is well settled that a party ought not to be punished for contempt founded on an order whose validity is under appellate scrutiny,” the court declared.

The appellate court relied on authorities including Vaswani Trading Co. v. Savalakh & Co. and Adeniyi v. Governing Council, Yaba College of Technology in reaching its decision.

Justice Abdullahi, in his concurring judgment, also pointed to serious procedural defects in the committal proceedings, especially the defective issuance of Form 48, which he said robbed the lower court of jurisdiction.
He described contempt proceedings as quasi-criminal in nature and insisted that strict compliance with procedural safeguards is mandatory.

“The failure to arraign the Appellant and take his plea constitutes a grave procedural irregularity which vitiates the entire proceedings,” he stated.

Appeal Succeeds
Having resolved all issues in favour of the appellant, the Court of Appeal declared the appeal meritorious and allowed it in its entirety.

The appellate court consequently set aside all rulings and orders made by the Ogun State High Court on September 15, 2014, including all consequential orders arising from them.

Legal observers say the judgment may significantly reshape the long-standing kingship dispute in Iro Township and reinforce judicial caution in handling sensitive chieftaincy matters across the country.

The respondents in the appeal included members of the Oleyo Ruling House, members of the Iro Council of Chiefs and Regency Council, the Ogun State Attorney General, the Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Matters, the Alake and Paramount Ruler of Egbaland, and the Obafemi/Owode Local Government.