Emmanuel Ukudolo I Tuesday, October 07, 2025
IKEJA, LAGOS – A fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by the Incorporated Trustees of Magodo Residents Association was on Tuesday struck out by the High Court of Lagos State, Ikeja, following the applicants’ repeated absence and failure to diligently prosecute the matter.
Justice Azeez Fimisola delivered the ruling after being informed of the applicants’ continuous absence and their refusal to respond to processes filed by the sixth respondent/applicant. The court also awarded a cost of ₦50,000 against the Magodo Residents Association.
The suit had named the Attorney-General of the Federation, the Inspector-General of Police, the Lagos State Commissioner of Police, CSP Abimbola Oyewole, Chief Adebayo Adeyiga, Chief Yusuf Ogundare, and Owokoniran Adeyiga as respondents.
Counsel for the sixth respondent/applicant, Deji Fasusi, had drawn the court’s attention to the persistent non-appearance of the applicants and their lack of response to court filings.
He argued that the suit, being a fundamental rights action, required prompt pursuit and urged the court to strike out the matter for want of diligent prosecution. Justice Fimisola agreed with the argument, leading to the striking out of the entire suit.
Dispute Over Substituted Service
The court’s decision followed an application filed by the sixth respondent/applicant seeking to set aside a substituted service order relating to the fifth and seventh respondents.
The Motion on Notice, brought pursuant to Order 5 Rule 9 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009, sought to set aside the substituted service granted on April 20, 2022, concerning the fifth and seventh respondents.
The service involved pasting court processes at the entrance of the sixth respondent’s residence at No. 1, Mutairu Street, Shangisha, Lagos.
The sixth respondent/applicant argued that he and his family were the sole occupants of the property, and that the fifth and seventh respondents were unknown to him.
He contended they were neither relatives, associates, nor acquaintances, and therefore, his residence could not be considered their last known address.
He further maintained that the substituted service was obtained by misrepresentation of material facts, asserting that the property in question was exclusively his family home and bore no connection to the other respondents.
