The Judiciary Watch of Nigeria (JUWON) has concluded arrangements to petition three judges of the Osun State High Court before the National Judicial Council (NJC) over what it described as a series of conflicting and legally untenable orders allegedly issued in respect of a valid and subsisting High Court judgment delivered nearly three decades ago.
According to the judiciary watchdog, the petition centres on Suit No. HOS/71/93 – Hephzibah Holdings Ltd v. Madam Sinatu Adeoye & 4 Others, in which the former Acting Chief Judge of Osun State, Hon. Justice R.O. Yusuf, delivered judgment on February 25, 1997.
JUWON alleged that the three judicial officers, whose identities were withheld, had entertained applications initiated by agents and privies of the judgment debtor and proceeded to issue orders that allegedly sought to frustrate, undermine, and render ineffective the execution of the subsisting judgment, rather than directing the dissatisfied parties to seek appropriate relief before the appellate court.
The organization maintained that once a court has become functus officio after delivering its final judgment, it lacks jurisdiction to revisit the substantive issues already determined except in circumstances recognized by law. It therefore argued that any orders capable of obstructing the execution of the 1997 judgment amount to a miscarriage of justice and fall far below the constitutional and ethical standards expected of judicial officers entrusted with preserving the integrity of the judicial system.
JUWON further recalled that the same High Court had earlier granted leave for the substitution of the judgment creditor and authorised the execution of the judgment, including the issuance of a warrant of possession over the disputed property. It noted that before delivering judgment in 1997, Justice R.O. Yusuf personally visited the locus in quo to ascertain the exact boundaries of the land in dispute before making his final determination.
The organization explained that counsel to the judgment creditor, Lekan Alabi, subsequently approached the High Court through Suit No. HOS/M.206/2024 solely to obtain administrative approval necessary to facilitate the enforcement of the declaratory judgment in favour of Madam Sinatu Adeoye, describing the application as a procedural step intended to ensure compliance with the court’s judgement.
JUWON further stated that the Chief Bailiff of the Osun State High Court duly submitted his report on the execution of the judgment on 30th day of April, 2025. It, however, alleged that despite the completion of the execution process, subsequent orders issued by the affected judges created legal obstacles to the judgment creditor’s possession of the property while allegedly providing undue protection to agents and privies of the judgment debtor.
According to the group, the development created an atmosphere in which the judgment debtor and associated parties allegedly became emboldened to initiate the arrest, harassment, and prosecution of the judgment creditor’s counsel, Lekan Alabi, as well as the lawful attorney to the judgment creditor, Najeem Popoola, actions which the organization described as an abuse of legal and security processes.
JUWON further alleged that personnel drawn from various security agencies—including the Osun State Police Command; the Force Criminal Investigation Department (FCID), Alagbon, the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Unit, the Nigeria Police Force Headquarters; officers of the Nigerian Army from the Engineering Regiment, Ede, the Osogbo Military Depot, as well as operatives of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC)—were allegedly deployed in connection with the dispute.
In a statement signed by the Deputy National Secretary of JUWON, Comrade Michael James on Friday, the organization disclosed that the conduct of the three judicial officers had remained under close observation for approximately one year, adding that it had now resolved to formally present its findings before the National Judicial Council for appropriate disciplinary consideration.
The statement read in part:”It is deeply disturbing that after a court has become functus officio on a matter, legal practitioners still approach the same court with applications capable of reopening issues already conclusively determined. More disturbing is the willingness of judicial officers to entertain such applications and issue orders that effectively prevent a successful litigant from enjoying the fruits of a lawful judgment.
“Judicial officers are sworn to preserve the sanctity, dignity and integrity of the courts. They must resist every attempt to manipulate the judicial process and remain steadfast in ensuring that justice, fairness and the rule of law prevail. The temple of justice must remain sacred and beyond compromise.”
Meanwhile, during proceedings in Suit No. HOS/M.206/2024 before the Osun State High Court sitting in Ikire on February 25, 2026, presided over by Hon. Justice S.A. Oke, the court directed counsel to the judgment creditor, Lekan Alabi, to serve copies of the 1982, 1997 and 2016 judgments relating to the disputed property on all occupants of the land, observing that under established legal principles, ownership of land extends to everything attached to it.
Similarly, the organisation referenced Suit No. HOS/81/13 – Mrs. Sidikatu Busari v. Alhaji Dele Yes Sir, in which the court awarded ₦5 million in damages against Alhaji Dele Yes Sir for acts of further trespass on a portion of the disputed land located near the Steel Rolling Mills Residential Quarters, popularly known as Iyana Camp, Osogbo.
According to JUWON, the succession of proprietary interests over the judgment land subsequently passed from the late Madam Sinatu Adeoye to the late Mrs. Sidikatu Busari and is now represented by Misitura Busari, who continues to pursue the enforcement of the subsisting judgments.
The organization concluded by expressing concern over what it described as conflicting judicial pronouncements capable of eroding public confidence in the administration of justice. It posed a question it believes deserves urgent reflection within the justice sector;
“If the courts cannot consistently uphold and enforce their own valid and subsisting judgments, what confidence should members of the public have in the judicial system and the rule of law?”
