Lagos State High Court has ordered all parties to maintain the status quo in the dispute over the proposed installation of a new Onisemo of Lagos, pending further hearing in a suit challenging the selection process.

The order followed an application by members of the Onisemo Chieftaincy Family, who are contesting moves to instal Lookman Oluwa, also known as Lookman Noah Fagbayi, as the Onisemo.

The claimants are Olabiyi Kosoko, Mrs Hawawu Abiodun Teluwo (suing for themselves and on behalf of the Onisemo Chieftaincy Family of Lagos) and Mr Olusegun Gbolade.

Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu, the state’s Attorney-General, Oba Rilwan Akiolu I, Executive Chairman, Lagos Island Local Government; Secretary, Chieftaincy Committee, Lagos Island Local Government; Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs; Sodiq Abosupala and Lookman Oluwa are the first to eighth defendants respectively.

At the hearing, counsel to the claimants, Martins Ogunleye, informed the court that while the first to sixth defendants had been served the originating processes, service was yet to be effected on the seventh and eighth defendants.

He moved a motion ex parte dated September 23, 2025, supported by a 22-paragraph affidavit, eight exhibits and a written address, urging the court to grant interim reliefs.

No legal representative appeared for the defendants at the session.

The claimants sought, among other reliefs, an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Oba of Lagos, his servants, agents or privies from installing, coronating or performing any installation rite on the eighth defendant as the Onisemo of Lagos, pending the hearing and determination of the suit.

Ruling, Justice N.O. Ojuromi held that interim injunctions were preservatory in nature and meant to maintain the res pending the determination of a motion on notice.

The court ordered that all parties should maintain the status quo and adjourned the case till January 9, 2026, for report of service on the seventh and eighth defendants, with a promise of an expedited hearing once service is completed.

In an affidavit in support of the application, Kosoko, a princess and the first claimant, deposed that she is the Secretary of the Oshokeji Ruling House of the Onisemo Chieftaincy Family of Lagos. She stated that the suit was instituted to challenge the “purported selection” of the eighth defendant as the Onisemo of Lagos, insisting that “he is not a member of the Onisemo chieftaincy family and does not belong to the Oshokeji Ruling
House”, which she said is the only ruling house entitled to produce the next Onisemo.

The princess further averred that it was the turn of the Oshokeji Ruling House to present the next Onisemo following the death of the last title holder, Chief Lekan Adamson, in 2019, adding that the third claimant was duly selected by the ruling house as the Onisemo-elect, as evidenced by Exhibit B.

She alleged that in May 2025, the eighth defendant invaded the Onisemo Palace at 127/129 Enu-Owa Street, Lagos, and laid claim to the stool.

According to her, the family promptly petitioned the relevant authorities, including Governor Sanwo-Olu and other defendants, disowning the eighth defendant’s claims, but alleged that the authorities failed to act.

Disclosing that a separate court action seeking pre-emptive injunctive reliefs had earlier been filed by family members, she added that letters were also written to government officials urging them to maintain the status quo.

She expressed shock at the emergence of the letter from the third defendant, which allegedly conveyed that the eighth defendant’s selection had been approved and gazetted, noting that the approval was allegedly signed on July 31, 2025, but backdated to April 2025, despite the pendency of court proceedings.

Kosoko warned that the actions of the defendants were capable of causing unrest within the family and the community, noting the Onisemo stool as a traditional and cultural institution whose desecration could not be compensated with pecuniary damages.

She maintained that the eighth defendant would suffer no loss if restrained, as he had not been formally installed, and undertook to indemnify the defendants in damages should the injunction later be found to have been wrongly sought.