Demolition: After Gbenga Daniel Submits Evidence of Building Approval, Ogun State Govt Stalls Proceedings
The Ogun State Government legal team has been accused of deliberately stalling court proceedings after the claimants in a demolition suit presented evidence of building approval, throwing the case into fresh controversy at the Ondo State High Court on Monday.
The case took a dramatic turn when the claimants, represented by Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Kotoye, filed a further affidavit exhibiting the approval of their building on September 25th. This critical document, which directly addresses the core issue in the demolition dispute, appeared to have caught the state government’s legal team off guard.
According to Kotoye SAN, the submission of this building approval should have prompted immediate settlement discussions. Instead, the government’s legal team responded by serving a Notice of Preliminary Objection on the morning of October 13th—despite filing it on October 2nd—effectively preventing the matter from being heard.
“I had expected a smart legal team to call and invite us for a meeting on receiving our papers,” Kotoye SAN told the court, his frustration evident. “But they would rather come to lie in the open court.”
The senior advocate painted a picture of a government legal team that, faced with evidence undermining their position, resorted to procedural tactics to avoid confronting the substance of the case. He characterised the Defence as “not only incompetent by not studying their files” but also “not interested in mediation.”
The Court’s Rebuke and What Happens Next
The state government’s legal team, led by Director of Civil Litigation Mrs R.B. Kadri, defended the delay in serving the preliminary objection by citing the death of Late Ogunba, whose office served as the claimants’ address within jurisdiction. Mrs Kadri explained that Ogunba died on October 3rd, the same day they filed the objection, preventing them from effecting service.
However, Kotoye SAN dismissed this explanation as “not only lame but also unfounded,” revealing that Ogunba’s office remained operational and that he had filed a notice of change of address. “We still received processes there last week,” he stated, further undermining the Defence’s justification.
The presiding judge appeared unconvinced by the Defence’s explanations, delivering what observers described as a pointed rebuke. “If you have received this court process and looked at it, why did you not call them and start the settlement meeting?” the judge asked Mrs Kadri directly.
The court further noted that the Defence team had been present the previous week and could have filed and served all necessary processes if they were genuinely committed to resolving the matter. “All these processes filed and served today, your team was here last week; they could have done all that if you were serious and wanted this matter to move on,” the judge observed.
Kotoye SAN revealed a troubling pattern in the state government’s litigation strategy. “In the regular nature of the state, I am sure they came this morning to stall proceedings,” he stated. “Like I said earlier, I am used to these antics, especially from the Solicitor General leading the team.”
The senior advocate disclosed that he had previously discussed privately with the Defence team their practice of always serving processes in court rather than through proper channels. “It is unethical for her to make such submissions,” he added, suggesting the Defence team was aware of the impropriety of their conduct.
Adding another dimension to the controversy, Kotoye SAN accused the government’s legal team of conducting a media campaign against the claimants. “We had barely left court when we began to read stories in the papers about what did not happen in court,” he revealed.
Despite the provocation, the senior advocate maintained his professional standards. “I could have filed contempt proceedings against the Solicitor General or replied in the papers, but I do not fight my battles outside the courtroom,” he stated. Instead, he responded by filing the affidavit with the building approval evidence.
Mrs Kadri defended her team’s actions, insisting they remained open to settlement but had heard nothing from the claimants. She took exception to the “too strong and personal” language used by Kotoye SAN, emphasising that the matter was not personal and that her team, as civil servants, were following instructions from higher authorities.
When the court indicated a willingness to proceed despite an upcoming leave, Mrs Kadri suggested bringing a letter to have the matter transferred to another court—a move that further suggested reluctance to engage with the substantive issues.
The court had previously encouraged parties to explore settlement, making the current impasse particularly frustrating. Kotoye SAN emphasised a fundamental principle: “It is the government that ought to serve the masses and not the other way round,” suggesting that the state should have taken the initiative to resolve the matter after seeing the building approval evidence.
The claimants’ legal team maintains that the building approval, filed on September 25th, should have been the catalyst for settlement discussions. The government’s failure to respond to this critical evidence, followed by the last-minute service of a preliminary objection, suggests a deliberate strategy to avoid addressing the merits of the case.
Despite the procedural obstacles, Kotoye SAN expressed confidence in his client’s position. “The same preliminary objection has been taken by your brother in Ijebu Ode; we are ready to take it,” he told the court, indicating familiarity with the Defence’s arguments and readiness to demolish them.
The senior advocate opposed the application for adjournment, stating: “I am ready to take the argument immediately.” However, the presiding judge, scheduled to go on leave the following week, declined to proceed, noting the 90-day window available for writing a ruling.
The court adjourned the matter (HCS/371/2025), along with related suits HCS/372/2025 and HCS/374/2025, to January 14, 2026, for the hearing of all applications. Crucially, the ex parte order previously granted—presumably preventing further demolition—was extended until the hearing date.
In requesting this extension, Kotoye SAN invoked the equitable principle that “equity aids the vigilant not the indolent,” explaining that he had been “burnt before” and was always careful with his prayers. The court agreed, ensuring the status quo would be maintained.
The case raises serious questions about how government entities respond when faced with evidence that undermines their actions. The claimants’ submission of building approval—the very document that should prove the legitimacy of their structure—appears to have triggered a series of procedural manoeuvres rather than substantive engagement.
Legal observers note that if the building approval is authentic and properly obtained, it could fundamentally weaken the government’s case for demolition. The apparent reluctance to engage in settlement discussions after this evidence emerged suggests the state may be in a difficult legal position.
The matter now awaits a comprehensive hearing in January 2026, with the building approval evidence likely to feature prominently in arguments. Until then, the extended court order protects the claimants’ property from further action.
This case is part of suits HCS/371/2025, 372/2025, and 374/2025, suggesting multiple parties or properties may be affected by similar demolition actions by the Ogun State Government. The outcome could have implications for other property owners facing similar disputes with the state.
The judge, while cautioning Kotoye SAN to be less harsh on the Defence team—acknowledging they were civil servants taking instructions—appeared sympathetic to the claimants’ frustration with the procedural delays.
As parties left the courtroom, Kotoye SAN predicted that another social media story would emerge before day’s end, highlighting the parallel media battle accompanying this legal dispute.
