The controversy surrounding the removal of the Apetumodu of Ipetumodu, Oba Joseph Oloyede, has moved into another phase, with the former monarch asking a court in Osun State to prevent the government from installing a successor while his legal challenge remains unresolved.
Oloyede has approached the Osun State High Court sitting in Ile-Ife, seeking an order restraining Governor Ademola Adeleke and other relevant authorities from filling the traditional stool until the substantive suit challenging his deposition has been determined.
The application, filed on September 16, 2026, forms part of suit number HIF/50/2026. Through the motion, the former ruler is asking the court to stop further action towards appointing a new Apetumodu pending the resolution of the dispute over the legality of his removal.
At the centre of his argument is the allegation that the state government failed to formally notify him of any wrongdoing before taking steps to remove him from the throne.
According to the application, Oloyede maintains that he was not given formal notice of any alleged offence before the decision to depose him was announced.
He is therefore asking the court to examine the procedure adopted by the authorities and determine whether his removal complied with the applicable requirements.
The former monarch’s position is that the court should prevent the appointment of another traditional ruler while the legality of the existing decision remains under judicial consideration.
His latest move comes months after his removal from the traditional institution following his conviction in the United States in a case involving tax fraud and money laundering.
However, the current proceedings concern the legality of the state government’s action and the process through which he was removed from office.
Oloyede has also cited a report published by The Guardian on May 11, 2026, which stated that Adeleke signed the removal order on May 7, 2026.
By referring to the publication, the former monarch is challenging the circumstances surrounding the announcement of his deposition.
He argues that he was not informed of any alleged offence before the government made its decision public.
The court is being asked to consider these concerns as part of the broader dispute over the traditional stool. Nevertheless, the claims contained in the application have yet to be conclusively determined by the court.
Royal family members join legal battle
The case also involves other members of the royal family who are challenging issues connected with the traditional institution.
Among the additional claimants are Princes Oyewusi Adewusi, Isaac Adewuni and Abiodun Oyetoro. They are representing members of the Latimogun Royal Family of the Aribile Ruling House.
Their participation brings the interests of the royal family into the proceedings, although the precise reliefs sought by each claimant are not separately detailed in the available account of the case.
The defendants include Governor Adeleke, the Osun State Attorney-General and the Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs.
Also listed are Chief Afolabi Adedeji, Chief Adesoye Babalola, the Malefon of Ipetumodu and Ife North Local Government.
The inclusion of state officials, traditional authorities and the local government underscores the different institutions involved in the dispute over the Ipetumodu stool.
For Oloyede, the immediate objective of the application is to prevent the installation of another monarch before the court determines whether his own removal was lawful.
Court adjourns proceedings until January 2027
Meanwhile, the case could not make substantive progress when it came up for hearing on Monday because some of the defendants reportedly had not received their hearing notices.
The development prompted a request for an adjournment after the lawyers present gave different accounts regarding service of the relevant court documents.
O. Ogbewe, counsel representing the claimants, informed the court that the processes had been served on the parties involved in the case.
However, Soji Oyetayo, who appeared for the fifth defendant, told the court that he had not received the hearing notice. He subsequently asked for the proceedings to be postponed to allow the necessary notification to be completed.
The absence of the hearing notice raised a procedural issue that had to be addressed before the matter could proceed.
After considering the situation, Justice Dapo Adeniji adjourned the case until January 21, 2027.
The judge also directed that fresh hearing notices be issued and served on the defendants ahead of the next sitting.
The directive is intended to ensure that the parties are properly notified of the proceedings and have the opportunity to participate when the case resumes.
The adjournment means that the substantive questions surrounding Oloyede’s deposition remain before the court, while his request to prevent the appointment of a successor is yet to be resolved.
Traditional stool dispute awaits judicial decision
The next hearing is expected to provide an opportunity for the case to progress after the service of fresh notices.
Until then, the court has not delivered a final judgment on the claim that the former monarch’s removal was procedurally defective. The available information also does not establish that the court has granted his request to stop the appointment of another traditional ruler.
The legal dispute therefore remains ongoing, with the former monarch seeking judicial intervention and the defendants expected to respond through the proceedings.
The eventual determination will depend on the arguments presented by the parties, the applicable law and the court’s assessment of the issues raised.
For now, the immediate focus is on ensuring that all defendants receive the required hearing notices before the matter returns to court in January.
The case is expected to clarify the legal questions raised by the former monarch concerning his removal and the proposed filling of the vacant traditional stool. Until the court rules, the allegations contained in the suit remain claims awaiting judicial determination.
About The Author
