They argued that allowing the order to remain would obstruct governance at the local level and violate the 1999 Constitution. None of the applicants or principal parties, however, was present during Thursday’s proceedings.
An Oyo State High Court sitting in Ibadan has dismissed an application by sacked All Progressives Congress Local Government chairmen in Osun State, ruling that they lacked any legally recognisable interest in the contentious council funds currently frozen in the United Bank for Africa.
The former chairmen, listed in their filing as “Persons Affected”, had approached the court in Suit No. I/1149/2025: Attorney General of Osun State & Anor v. UBA PLC, seeking leave to challenge the ex parte order granted on September 26, 2025, which froze the accounts, as well as a reversal of that order.
They argued that allowing the order to remain would obstruct governance at the local level and violate the 1999 Constitution. None of the applicants or principal parties, however, was present during Thursday’s proceedings.
Musibau Adetunbi (SAN), with E.Y. Ajayi and D.G. Egunjobi, appeared for the state Attorney General, while Oluwatomiwa Fadeyi represented UBA.
Delivering his ruling, Justice Ladiran Akintola held that the application was without merit, stressing that the sacked chairmen were “strangers to the suit” after having withdrawn their earlier bid to be joined.
The court maintained that they had no locus standi, as they possessed no lawful claim or legal interest in the frozen funds that would entitle them to seek a discharge of the ex parte order or a striking out of the suit.
The judge further noted that the chairmen’s withdrawal of their joinder motion amounted to an admission that they had no legitimate basis to intervene in the matter.
Akintola subsequently dismissed “the application in its entirety.”
Following the ruling, Adetunbi (SAN) thanked the court for what he described as a well-delivered decision.
He also notified the court of his clients’ intention to obtain a clearer copy of the Supreme Court judgment delivered on December 5, 2025, in SC/CV/773/2025: Attorney General of Osun State v. Attorney General of the Federation, to guide their next steps.
Justice Akintola adjourned the case to December 18, 2025, for mention.
Previously, SaharaReporters reported that the High court, sitting in Oyo State, issued an interim order restraining the United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc from releasing statutory funds belonging to the 30 local governments in Osun State.
In the enrolment of the order dated September 26, 2025, in Suit No. I/1149/25, filed by the Attorney General of Osun State and the Osun State Local Government Service Commission against UBA, the claimants sought interim protection over local government allocations.
The claimants requested "an Order of Interim Injunction restraining the Defendant/Respondent from paying and/or causing to be paid all and/or any of that funds which constitute the statutory Local Government funds of all the 30 Local Governments in Osun State as listed under Osun State in the 1st Schedule, Part 1 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice for an order of interlocutory injunction filed in this case."
They further prayed the court for "an Order of Interim Injunction of this Honourable Court mandating the Defendant/Respondent not to release all the said funds mentioned in relief one above and/or any part of it to any person however he may be, be it artificial or natural pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice for an order of interlocutory injunction filed in this case."
The motion ex-parte was supported by an affidavit deposed to by Olufemi Akande Ogundun. Counsel to the claimants, A.A. Abass Esq, moved the motion on September 26, 2025.
In his ruling, Justice A.L. Akintola stated: "Having carefully considered the motion Ex-parte together with the supporting affidavit and the Exhibits attached on the one hand as well as the written address of counsel and the affidavit of urgency filed along with the motion, this court is satisfied that the claimants/applicants have successfully made out a case for the urgent intervention of this court at this stage as any delay may foist on the claimants/applicants an irreversible harm, injury or situation of helplessness."
The judge further clarified: "In any event, it is only an interim order that the defendant/respondent will have the opportunity to possibly challenge once the defendant turns up to join issues with the claimants on the motion on notice for an order of interlocutory injunction already filed in this case.
"Accordingly, the interim orders of injunction sought are hereby granted as prayed, on the claimants/applicants' motion Ex-parte dated 26th September, 2025 and filed on the same date in this case."