A high-profile land grabbing case being heard at the Customary Court Grade 1, Owode Egba in Obafemi Owode Local Government Area of Ogun State in a case suit file No. 265/2024 took a dramatic turn on Monday when the defendant, Mr Sylvester Olusanmi Abiodun, (a palm plantation farmer) accused the legal practitioner President of the Ogun State Customary Court grade 1, Owode Egba of bias.
Mr. Abiodun said that he noticed the customary court grade 1 president partiality ever since the commencement of hearing of the case, citing previous rulings and body language of the presiding judge in which he claimed the judge demonstrated prejudice against him.
The defendant while raising his observations reiterated that the judge’s actions and words in previous hearings involving the plaintiffs, Waheed Muraina and Ajani Muhammad showed a clear bias against his case.
“My lord sir, I have some issues of grave importance to bring before the court, Since the commencement of proceeding in this case where some entities were striving to grab my land, I noticed in one of the sittings of this court that a case was called before mine, where Waheed Muraina is the plaintiff.
After the case of my land was called and adjourned, another case was also called while I was packing my bag, where Waheed Muraina is also the plaintiff ; three cases on the same day all related to Waheed Muraina over ownership of land at different locations, there are two other instances on different dates, of cases where Waheed Muraina is also the plaintiff over land ownership,” Mr. Abiodun remarked.
“There are two bottom lines; It is a well-established fact that Waheed Muraina is a familiar petitioner in this court over claims of ownership of land and the court is also familiar with this fact, and therefore should have observed that Waheed Muraina is a land grabber” he added
In his point of order, the defendant also stated that he observed that on the 24th of March when Waheed Muraina was giving his evidence; the judge requested that everybody that had come to bear witness must exit the court.
“My Lord requested that everybody that had come to witness must exit the court. The significance of this dawned on me when Waheed Muraina was telling his fraudulent Lajooku family history’.
The Lajooku family that sold the land to me, being witnesses, were compelled to leave the courtroom, then I saw clearly the scheme. Throwback in one of the sittings of the court, long before the commencement of trial on the 24th March, my lawyer wanted to join the Lajooku family in this case, sir, you told him that it is not necessary, that they would be witnesses. Now when it is critical to hear the story that Waheed Muraina was telling, the Lajooku family was denied the opportunity to hear what they only have the appropriate answers. I am not a member of Lajooku family. I only bought land from Lajooku,” The defendant explained
So, your earlier rejection of my lawyer’s request to join the Lajooku family was a deliberate manipulation to give a soft judgement to Waheed Muraina and Ajani Mohammed and their cohorts and the whole issue became incontrovertibly clear when we juxtaposed all these events against the letter that Waheed Muraina wrote to the court on the 17th March, the date trial was to commence: magisterially, in his own letter head and in his personal capacity with a confident familiarity with the court telling the court that he wasn’t coming to court because he had more important things to attend to elsewhere, a date he had agreed to before, and without an advance notice of absence.
You claim not to have seen the letter when my lawyer called your attention to it. Since his lawyer who submitted the letter to the court was on seat, in the ordinary sense of it, one believed that he should have been asked to retrieve it and submit the same to the court. You refuse to acknowledge the letter but still ruled over it after having my lawyer read it to you,” he added
He said that the letter written by Waheed Muraina underscore his familiarity with the court and clearly showed that the plaintiff has a cordial relationship with the Court.
On the Survey plan submitted by Waheed Muraina, the defendant claimed that the judge was unable to read the plan Number but went ahead to admit the same as evidence, adding that his counsel wanted to raise an objection but was turned down.
“We are aware that the survey plan is a fraud but at least we should have been given the benefit of examining it for our own case.” he said.
He alleged that the court has been doing everything with the end to award his land to the plaintiff in judgement, adding that he has no confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the court and urged the court to recuse itself from the case,
“I believe that this bias will impact the outcome of the case, and therefore, I request that the Court recuse itself from the case and return the case file to the appropriate authority for reassignment to ensure a fair trial,” he concluded
The President/Judge of the Ogun State Customary Court, Owode Egba Grade 1, a legal practitioner, frowned at the development and said that there was no evidence to substantiate the claims of bias, saying that Mr. Abiodun was only showing his ignorance. He became agitated, exchanging hot words with the defendant!! He said that he cannot stop Waheed Muraina from bringing as many cases of land as he wishes, the customary court grade1 being the only court in the local government!
After hearing the observations raised by the defendant and reactions from both counsels, the judge said that the defendant should make available in writing his point of order to enable the Court to escalate the matter to appropriate Quarter.
The allegations led to an adjournment of the case to Monday the 16th of June to allow for further deliberation.
Meanwhile, the last case called that day was yet another case of land grabbing in the suit number OOCC/497/2024: Chief Waheed Muraina Vs Mr. Ramon & 1 ORS.
In his evidence and testimony in this case, Waheed Muraina, the plaintiff, told the same family history as in the suit involving Mr. Abiodun, where the land was passed down the line to him by his great, great, grandfather. The only difference being that the names of his great, great grandfather have changed from Lajooku (and other names among the great great) to new names in the new suit. And the two land locations are several kilometers apart, yet he claimed a different ancestry, which for the same person cannot be true.
When approached for interview after the court closed for the day, Mr. Abiodun stated that he cannot say much as the case is still in court but promised to shed more light on a new land grabbing scam going on in Ogun State right now as soon as the ruling is given on his request to transfer the case to an impartial judge.
Briefly, he said: My name is Olusanmi Abiodun. I am a geoscientist. Since retirement in 2010, I have turned to farming for livelihood.
In 2008, I bought a parcel of land measuring 19 acres at Lajooku village, from the Lajooku family. The head of the family then was Chief Jimoh Ogunfolaji (now late). 12 members of the Lajooku family who said they are representative of the whole family gave me a deed of assignment and receipt. I surveyed and applied to the Ogun state Bureau of Lands for certificate of occupancy, was charged application fees and publication fees which were paid and a publication in the Compass Newspaper was made by the Ogun state government in 2009. I paid the necessary fees to the family as well. A friend of mine joined me in farming on the land. We fenced and started farming activities with cattle ranching. 2012, we embarked on palm plantation with 1,200 palm seedlings. We started producing palm oil and palm kernels in 2015. Between 2015 and 2020, fire was set on the farm at least three times, necessitating the replanting of those burnt by these unknown arsonists suspected to be these landgrabbers. March 2024 our workers called our attention to a court summon dropped with them by unknown persons. We forwarded the same to our lawyer to respond. The Lajooku family members told us that the plaintiff is a notorious land grabber on that axis called Waheed Muraina.
Waheed Muraina brings several land grabbing suits to the Ogun state Customary Court grade 1 Obafemi Owode LGA claiming different ancestries in the different cases, on lands that are scattered over locations that are far apart. The strange thing is that all these suits are filled by the same lawyer, brought to the same court. The pertinent question is whether there is no sufficient ground to suspect a crime when a man brings different suits drawn by the same lawyer to a particular court, claiming different ancestral background for each suit, and what should a judge or lawyer do in those circumstances that fraudulent intentions are glaring.
Should a lawyer, as a judicial officer, cover up for his client a glaring criminality? Mr. Abiodun asked. Should a judge fail to notice a litigant with multiple suits claiming different ancestral lineages? If the bar lists of cases in this court (sitting on Mondays and Tuesdays weekly) in the last 18 months are examined, one will find multiples cases brought by Waheed Muraina, and in each a different ancestral lineage history. Should both the judge and the lawyer not be accused of aiding and abetting criminality?
Another pertinent question Mr. Abiodun asked is why the Ogun state government that asked applicants for fees to publish application for certificate of Occupancy, with intention to call attention of the public to the fact that someone is claiming occupancy on a particular parcel of land, with a statutory time limit after which objection can no longer be entertained, now made the customary court to be non-statute bared? Mr. Abiodun said that the Ogun state Government published his application in 2009, and nobody till today has challenged that publication.
The land grabbing case revolves around a disputed property in Lajooku village, near Eleworo on the Ofada- Mokoloki road, with both parties claiming ownership rights. The case has garnered significant attention due to the high stakes involved and the complex legal issues at play.
As the case unfolds, stakeholders are eagerly awaiting the court’s decision and its implications for justice and fairness in the land grabbing case.
