Court orders status quo in Onitsha South landlords’ association leadership crisis

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

By Sunny A. David, Awka

The High Court of Anambra State sitting in Onitsha has ruled on the lingering leadership tussle rocking the Onitsha South Landlords’ Association (Fegge Layout), ordering parties to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the substantive suit.

The case, marked Suit No: O/Misc.349/2024, was brought before Hon. Justice J.I. Nweze, Admin Judge, Onitsha Judicial Division by the Incorporated Trustees of Onitsha South Landlords’ Association (Fegge Layout) and four others, including Mazi Samuel Ezeilo, Elder Joseph Okafor, Prince Rex Wilson Anyaoha, and Hon. Ndubuisi Umeh. They are challenging moves by some members led by Hon. Emeka Orji, Okwudili Obinwanne, Nelson Ojukwu, and Barrister Noel Udorji, who allegedly appointed a caretaker committee to replace the elected executives.

In an earlier order made on May 29, 2024, the court had directed all parties to maintain status quo ante bellum — meaning the state of affairs before the leadership crisis began. However, the applicants accused the respondents of disobeying the order by continuing to hold meetings, collect revenues, and run the affairs of the association despite the pending suit.

Counsel to the applicants subsequently filed a motion for committal against one Philip Ozah, described as a contemnor, urging the court to jail him for allegedly flouting its directive.

But in his defence, Ozah denied any wrongdoing. He argued through his counsel that the order to maintain status quo ante bellum referred to the state of affairs before the dispute began, which, according to him, meant the association should remain under the management of the duly elected executives led by Prince Rex Wilson Anyaoha until the expiration of their tenure in March 2024.

Justice Nweze, after reviewing affidavits and counter-affidavits, emphasized that the order of May 29, 2024 remained binding on all parties and must be obeyed. The court maintained that any action contrary to the directive amounted to contempt.

The matter, which touches on the interpretation of the association’s leadership legitimacy, has been adjourned for further hearing.