The traditional ruler of Ogwashi-Uku Kingdom in Delta State, Obi (Dr.) Ifechukwude Aninshi Okonjo II, has reaffirmed the kingdom’s determination to protect its ancestral lands through all available lawful means, insisting that a recent ruling by a Delta State High Court in Asaba should not be interpreted as a final judgment determining the boundary between Ogwashi-Uku and neighbouring Ibusa community.

The monarch, who spoke through a statement issued by the Palace Secretary, Prince Ifeakanackukwu Emordi, was reacting to a publication circulated by some individuals from Ibusa following the court’s ruling on the longstanding boundary dispute between the two communities.

He described the publication’s interpretation of the ruling as misleading, arguing that the court’s decision arose from a preliminary objection raised during the proceedings and did not amount to a substantive judgment conclusively determining the disputed boundary.

According to the monarch, the distinction between a ruling on a preliminary objection and a final judgment on the substantive issues in a land dispute is fundamental and should not be ignored in public discussions of the case.

“The publication’s suggestion that the court has, by today’s decision, freshly determined the boundary between both communities at the Ubu Stream is a grossly misleading characterisation of what transpired,” the statement said.

“It was a ruling on a preliminary objection, not a substantive judgment determining the boundary between Ogwashi-Uku and Ibusa.”

Obi Okonjo expressed confidence that the Court of Appeal would overturn the ruling, maintaining that the judicial process remained ongoing and that the outstanding legal questions should be resolved through the appropriate appellate procedures.

He urged those responsible for the publication to stop circulating what he described as misleading interpretations of the court proceedings, warning that sensational headlines could create unnecessary tension between the neighbouring communities.

The monarch also cautioned against interpreting the ruling as authorisation for anyone to trespass on disputed lands, intimidate farmers, engage in unlawful land transactions, mobilise thugs or attempt to alter existing boundaries through force.

Reaffirming the position of the Ogwashi-Uku Palace, he maintained that the Oboshi River remained the boundary between the two communities and rejected what he described as attempts to use the procedural ruling as a blanket declaration transferring Ogwashi-Uku communal lands to Ibusa.

The statement further argued that the specific lands and villages covered by historical litigation should not be confused with the wider territorial claims currently being advanced by some interests in Ibusa.

“It is particularly important to distinguish the specific lands and villages involved in the historical litigation from the much wider boundary now being claimed by certain Ibusa interests,” the monarch said.

He added that media publications or public statements could not expand the geographical scope of an earlier court judgment or confer rights over lands that were not properly adjudicated upon in the original proceedings.

The Ogwashi-Uku Palace also questioned attempts by parties in Ibusa to rely on a judgment delivered about 40 years ago, stating that issues concerning its execution and enforceability were already before the Court of Appeal.

According to the statement, the existence of an old judgment does not automatically confer the right to execute it decades later without complying with applicable legal requirements or establishing that the disputed lands fall within the scope of the original proceedings.

The palace maintained that the historical judgment could not lawfully be enforced in the manner it said was currently being attempted, particularly while related questions remained pending before the appellate court.

“Indeed, it is our firm legal contention that their present attempt to resurrect and enforce this ancient judgment is dead on arrival, having regard to its age, the applicable legal requirements for enforcement, the scope of the original proceedings and the issues now pending before the appellate court,” the statement said.

It further stated that no party should rely on the historical judgment to disregard due legal process or extend its geographical reach beyond the lands and parties covered by its terms.