Appeal Court wey sidon for inside Akure, wey be Ondo State capital, don sack d traditional ruler of Igbindo community for Ondo West Local Government Area of d state, Oba John Ogundoju, based on say him no fit to contest d stool.
For d court judgment wey dem deliver for December 2017, e order Ogundoju say make him vacate d stool and stop to dey parade himself as d traditional ruler of d community kon follow order d ruling house say make dem start fresh process so dem go elect new monarch for d town. Dem kon make d copy of d judgment available to journalists on Sunday.
Na for July 28, 2015 state High Court comot Ogundoju wey be say e no even reach two weeks after dem present am d staff of office by d Ondo State Government but him challenge d action for d appellate court.
D legal battle kon start for d community when some princes from Ogbowo Okun Ruling House wey be say na Adetutu Ifashole and Okunade Makinde Fashole lead dem, drag Ogundoju and four others to court as him no fit contest for d empty stool of d Akinnuwa of Igbindo town.
Other defendants for d suit, aside d monarch na Adeodi Adebayo, Taye Akinkugbe, d Chairman of d ruling house, Adeseeke Adewale Stephen and Joseph Olamodimu.
D princes beg d court say make dem declare Ogundoju ineligible to be d monarch of d town on d ground say him come from d female lineage of d ruling house and e dey against d custom and tradition to cllimb d throne wey suppose be for person from only male lineage.
But d traditional ruler bin no dey satisfied wit d judgement of d high court so through him counsel Mr. Kunle Adetowubo, kon proceed to d appellate court to challenge d high court ruling.
But for judgment delivered by d three-man panel, d appellate court still follow d first judgment of d high court kon dismiss d appeal for lack of merit.
D presiding judge, Justice Mohammed Danjuma, kon say,
“On d basis of d facts and evidence wey d parties provide for d case and d authorities cited, na my finding say d decision of d learned trial court on dis issue dey in order. E dey resolved against d appellants and in favour of d respondents.”