A State High Court located in Ibadan, Oyo State, has dismissed an application from the sacked All Progressives Congress (APC) Local Government chairmen in Osun State, ruling that they lacked any legally recognizable interest in the disputed council funds currently frozen in the United Bank for Africa.
The former chairmen, referred to in their filing as “Persons Affected,” sought the court’s permission in Suit No. I/1149/2025: Attorney General of Osun State & Anor v. UBA PLC to challenge the ex parte order issued on September 26, 2025, which froze the accounts, and requested a reversal of that order.
They contended that allowing the freeze to continue would hinder governance at the local level and violate the 1999 Constitution. However, none of the applicants or principal parties was present during Thursday’s proceedings.
Musibau Adetunbi (SAN), along with E.Y. Ajayi and D.G. Egunjobi, represented the state Attorney General, while Oluwatomiwa Fadeyi appeared for UBA.
In his ruling, Justice Ladiran Akintola stated that the application was without merit, highlighting that the sacked chairmen were “strangers to the suit” after withdrawing their earlier request to join the matter.
The court asserted that they had no locus standi, as they held no legal claim or lawful interest in the frozen funds that would allow them to seek a discharge of the ex parte order or a dismissal of the suit.
The judge also noted that the chairmen’s withdrawal of their joinder motion constituted an acknowledgment of their lack of legitimate grounds to intervene.
Akintola subsequently dismissed “the application in its entirety.”
Following the ruling, Adetunbi (SAN) expressed gratitude to the court for what he deemed a well-delivered decision.
He also informed the court of his clients’ intention to seek a clearer copy of the Supreme Court judgment issued on December 5, 2025, in SC/CV/773/2025: Attorney General of Osun State v. Attorney General of the Federation, to inform their next steps.
Justice Akintola adjourned the case to December 18, 2025, for mention.
Previously, The Legal Observer reported that the High Court in Oyo State had issued an interim order preventing the United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc from disbursing statutory funds belonging to the 30 local governments in Osun State.
According to the order dated September 26, 2025, in Suit No. I/1149/25 filed by the Attorney General of Osun State and the Osun State Local Government Service Commission against UBA, the claimants sought urgent protection for local government allocations.
They requested “an Order of Interim Injunction restraining the Defendant/Respondent from paying and/or causing to be paid all and/or any of those funds constituting the statutory Local Government funds of all 30 Local Governments in Osun State as detailed under Osun State in the 1st Schedule, Part 1 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice for an order of interlocutory injunction filed in this case.”
They further petitioned for “an Order of Interim Injunction of this Honourable Court mandating the Defendant/Respondent not to release any of the aforementioned funds mentioned in relief one above and/or any part of it to any person, whether artificial or natural, pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice for an order of interlocutory injunction filed in this case.”
The ex-parte motion was supported by an affidavit sworn by Olufemi Akande Ogundun. Counsel for the claimants, A.A. Abass Esq, moved the motion on September 26, 2025.
In his ruling, Justice A.L. Akintola remarked: “Having carefully considered the motion Ex-parte together with the supporting affidavit and the Exhibits attached on the one hand, as well as the written address of counsel and the affidavit of urgency filed along with the motion, this court is satisfied that the claimants/applicants have successfully made a case for the urgent intervention of this court at this stage, as any delay may impose on the claimants/applicants an irreversible harm, injury, or situation of helplessness.”
The judge further clarified: “In any case, it is only an interim order that the defendant/respondent will have the opportunity to possibly challenge once the defendant appears to engage with the claimants on the motion on notice for an order of interlocutory injunction already filed in this case.
“Accordingly, the interim orders of injunction sought are hereby granted as requested on the claimants/applicants’ motion Ex-parte dated 26th September, 2025, and filed on the same date in this case.”
