… Says eviction notices violate existing contract

A former regent of Akure and chairman of the Football Association (FA) in Ondo State, Otunba Sunday Dele-Ajayi, has dragged oil giant Mobil PLC before the Ondo State High Court in a bid to stop his ejection from a filling station he operates in Akure, the state capital.

In suit number HCAK/447/CIV/2026, the claimant is asking the court to restrain the company, its officers, agents, servants, privies, or any person acting on its behalf from terminating the subsisting contractual arrangement or taking any steps to eject, evict, or dispossess him from the premises covered by the agreement, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.

Dele-Ajayi, through his lawyer, Olusola Oke, filed a Motion on Notice seeking an injunction to prevent the breach of the existing agreement between him and the company pending the determination of the case.

He also wrote a letter to the company urging it not to eject him from the premises of the filling station or destroy the subject matter of the suit while the matter is before the court.

The suit is predicated on two eviction notices dated September 25 and October 5, 2026, which the claimant contends are inconsistent with Clause 18.3 of the agreement and operating manual between him and the oil giant.

He maintained that the notices are invalid and that their legal effect ought to be determined by the court rather than through unilateral action by the company.

The letter, dated October 16 and made available to the newspaper on Sunday, stated that the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the eviction notices necessitated the institution of legal proceedings to protect his contractual rights and interests.

The law firm of Oke, in the letter, read: “In view of the pendency of the suit and the application for injunctive relief, we hereby strongly advise and formally demand that your company refrain from taking any step, or further step, towards the termination of our client’s contractual arrangement, his eviction or ejectment, or any other action capable of prejudicing, defeating, or rendering nugatory the subject matter of the pending proceedings.

“We draw your attention to the well-established principle of law that parties to pending judicial proceedings are expected to preserve the subject matter of the dispute and refrain from conduct calculated to undermine the authority of the court or frustrate the effective determination of the issues submitted for adjudication.

“In Military Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621, the Supreme Court of Nigeria emphatically deprecated self-help and affirmed the imperative of obedience to the rule of law, particularly where a dispute is before a competent court. The decision underscores the impropriety of taking unilateral action to determine a disputed right or possession outside the due process of law.

“Similarly, the courts have consistently recognized the importance of preserving the res, that is, the subject matter of litigation where interlocutory injunctive relief is sought. In Kotoye v. Central Bank of Nigeria (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 419, the Supreme Court considered the principles governing the grant of interlocutory injunctions and the need to preserve the relevant rights and subject matter pending the determination of the substantive dispute.

“We strongly urge your company to exercise restraint, avoid any unilateral action that may prejudice the pending proceedings, and allow the court the opportunity to determine the said Clause 18.3 vis-à-vis your written notices dated 25th September, 2026, and 5th October, 2026.

“Any action taken in disregard of the pending litigation, particularly one calculated to defeat the reliefs sought, may expose your company to further legal proceedings and any appropriate orders or consequences that the court may consider justified in the circumstances.

“For the avoidance of doubt, our client maintains that the notices dated 25th September, 2026, and 5th October, 2026, are inconsistent with Clause 18.3 of the Agreement and Operating Manual. The validity, legal effect, and consequences of those notices are now matters for judicial determination, and your company is hereby advised not to preempt that determination by taking steps that could alter the existing position or cause irreparable prejudice to our client.”