Court Stops Lisoyi, Atobatele, Kadejo, Others From Taking Over Aro-Oguntola Family Land

The Ogun State High Court sitting in Abeokuta has issued an interlocutory injunction restraining Chief Olukayode Lisoyi, Chief Ade Kadejo, Chief Shitta Sule, Chief Kabiru Adebeshin, Chief Mutalibi Somuyiwa, alongside other, from selling, leasing, reselling or otherwise dealing with disputed parcels of land located at Ibokun-Aro Town along the Lagos–Ibadan Expressway, Obafemi-Owode Local Government Area of Ogun State.

The order was made in a ruling delivered on Tuesday, December 9, 2025, by the High Court following a Motion on Notice filed by Shina Solarin and Ganiyu Oguntade, who are suing for themselves and on behalf of the Aro-Oguntola family.

In addition to restraining the Defendants the court also barred the affected Defendants, their agents and privies from engaging military personnel or third parties to interfere with the land pending the final determination of the suit.

The dispute centres on ownership of a parcel of land forming part of a larger expanse covered by Survey Plan No. A & B ROAK/48/99/OG dated 22 November 1999, which is a community land. The land lies along and off the commercially strategic Lagos–Ibadan Expressway which the land sellers referred to as Mowe as a selling point whereas the land is situate in Iboku-Aro.

During proceedings, the Claimants alleged that after the commencement of trial in May 2024, some of the Defendants jointly and severally invaded the land, carried out fresh surveys, excavated portions of it with earth-moving equipment, sold and leased parts of the land, and invited military personnel who allegedly erected “keep-off” signposts, issued notices to quit to occupants, destroyed crops, and commenced building construction on the land even when the parties have surrendered the dispute to the High Court to determination and resolution.

Several photographs of the alleged wrong activities listed above were attached to affidavits in support of the application including the sign post of military zone keep off utilised in claiming and reclaiming the land from indigenes. There are instances from the various photographs where the Defendants issued notices to quit on completed shops and buildings.

The Defendants, however, denied the allegations. They contended that the land had long been partitioned within the family, that different branches had historically sold their portions, and that none of them invited military personnel to the land or sold any part of it to soldiers.

Some of the Defendants also argued that the exact identity of the land claimed by the Claimants was unclear.

In his ruling, the High court held that although the identity of the precise portion of land in dispute would ultimately be resolved at the end of the trial, the court could not ignore evidence showing ongoing alteration of the land while the case was still pending.

The presiding judge noted that a survey plan covering the entire family land had already been admitted at trial as an exhibit and was clear and legible.

The court found that allowing further construction and alienation of the land could permanently change its character and create third-party interests that might complicate the final resolution of the case.

The judge held that there are serious issues to be tried in the case, held that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the land.

However, the court refused the Claimants’ request seeking an order compelling Chief Kayode Lisoyi, Chief Kadejo, Chief Sule, Chief Adebisi, Chief Somuyiwa, and others to report themselves to the police or to the Alake of Egbaland, ruling that such a directive was novel, unsupported by law, and outside the powers of the court.

Consequently the court granted the first two reliefs sought by the Claimants, dismissed the third, and ordered the Claimants to file an undertaking as to damages within 14 days, failing which the injunction would lapse. The court also awarded ₦100,000 in costs against the affected Defendants, jointly and severally.

The substantive suit, which raises issues of family land ownership, remains pending before the court.