Four weeks after it adjourned ruling on an application by the All Progressives Congress (APC) seeking to relist an appeal involving the sacked local government chairmen in Osun State, the Court of Appeal sitting in Akure, Ondo State has dismissed the application, thereby affirming the earlier judgment that led to their removal.
The appellate court held that the application lacked merit and upheld the decision of the lower court, which had invalidated the controversial appointments of the chairmen.
The panel ruled that due legal process had been followed in the initial judgment and there was no substantial basis to revive the case.
The dismissed appeal was initially filed to challenge the January 2025 decision that nullified the appointments.
However, the court reiterated that the appeal was earlier struck out for want of diligent prosecution on the part of the APC, and there was no justification for its reinstatement.
In their fresh motion, the sacked chairmen, through their counsel, sought to relist the appeal for proper hearing and determination.
But during the hearing, counsel to the Osun State Independent Electoral Commission (OSSIEC), Musibau Adetunbi, SAN, urged the court to take judicial notice of its previous ruling, arguing that the excuse given by the APC’s counsel—that he lost communication with his clients—was untenable.
Adetunbi presented evidence, including marked exhibits, showing that the same counsel, Muhydeen Adeoye (a.k.a Galadima), had filed briefs in other cases before the same court during the same period, which indicated ongoing communication with his clients.
After hearing submissions from all parties, the three-man panel led by Justice O.F. Omoleye dismissed the application and reaffirmed the lower court’s ruling.
It will be recalled that in February this year, the sacked APC chairmen had forcibly occupied local government secretariats across Osun State with the support of security agents—a move widely condemned as illegal and a breach of due process.
The action escalated tensions and drew criticism from various stakeholders, who described it as unconstitutional and a threat to the rule of law.