Magodo Residents’ Fundamental Rights Case Struck Out, Court Awards ₦50,000 Costs
A Lagos High Court has struck out a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by Magodo residents, awarding ₦50,000 in costs against the applicants. The judgment highlights procedural lapses and reinforces the need for proper legal representation in civic disputes.
Justice Azeez Fimisola of the Lagos State High Court, Ikeja, has struck out a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by the Incorporated Trustees of Magodo Residents Association against the Attorney-General of the Federation, the Inspector-General of Police, the Lagos State Commissioner of Police, CSP Abimbola Oyewole, Chief Adebayo Adeyiga, Chief Yusuf Ogundare, and Owokoniran Adeyiga.
The court dismissed the case following the applicants’ repeated absence and their failure to respond to processes filed by the sixth respondent/applicant, who sought to set aside the service of court papers on the fifth and seventh respondents.
Before the ruling, counsel to the sixth respondent/applicant, Mr Deji Fasusi, drew the court’s attention to the applicants’ persistent non-appearance and neglect in prosecuting the matter.
He urged the court to strike out the case for want of diligent prosecution, arguing that fundamental rights actions demand prompt and active pursuit.
Agreeing with the submission, Justice Fimisola struck out the suit in its entirety and awarded ₦50,000 costs against the Incorporated Trustees of Magodo Residents Association.
-
- Ogunlesi Eyes Mega Investments in Nigeria’s Energy, Aviation, and Port Sectors
- Blackmail and Extortion in Nigeria and The Punishment in The Law
- Moral Minefield or Smart Move? The Silent Epidemic of Strategic Defaulters in Nigeria’s Lending System
- Celebrating The Birthday Of The King Of Debt Recovery In Nigeria 2024
- Rape In Nigeria Law: Penalties, Legal Complexities Explained
ADVERT
In the Motion on Notice, brought pursuant to Order 5 Rule 9 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009, and under the court’s inherent jurisdiction, the sixth respondent/applicant had sought an order setting aside the substituted service granted on 20 April 2022, as it related to the fifth and seventh respondents.
The disputed service involved the pasting of court processes at the entrance of the sixth respondent’s residence at No. 1, Mutairu Street, Shangisha, Lagos. The applicant argued that he and his family were the sole occupants of the property and that the fifth and seventh respondents were unknown to him.
He maintained that they were neither relatives, associates, nor acquaintances, and therefore his residence could not reasonably be treated as their last known address.
He further contended that the substituted service was obtained through a misrepresentation of material facts, as the property was solely his family home with no connection whatsoever to the other respondents.
Kindly share this story:
Contact: report@probitasreport.com
Stay informed and ahead of the curve! Follow The ProbitasReport Online News Report on WhatsApp for real-time updates, breaking news, and exclusive content especially when it comes to integrity in business and financial fraud reporting. Don't miss any headline and follow ProbitasReport on social media platforms @probitasreport
©2025 ProbitasReport - All Rights Reserved. Reproduction or redistribution requires explicit permission.
What's Your Reaction?
