A High Court sitting in Makurdi, the Benue State capital, will on September 17 rule on an interlocutory injunction restraining “anybody from interfering with the properties of late Chief Hon. Pius Dooga Awunah”, popularly known as Padopads Awunah.
Justice Tertsea Kume, the presiding judge, fixed the date on Tuesday, September 9, after hearing the parties argue for and against the motion.
Barr. Placida Awunah has approached the Court in Suit Number MHC/129/2025 in respect of her father’s estate. Joined in the suit are Mr. Dave T. Awunah (1st Defendant), Ministry of Lands and Survey (2nd Defendant).
Although the defendants did not reply to the Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction filed by counsel to Placida until August 25, at the resumed hearing, the process was deemed to have been properly filed and served following the Presiding Judge’s ruling.
In moving the Motion for interlocutory injunction, Oscar Terhemen Aorabee, Esq, appearing with Tyosar Agatse, Esq, and Doochivir Igyô, Esq, urged the court to hold that the status quo of the estate remains pending the determination of the substantive suit.
Relying on the Certificate of Occupancy issued in respect of the land as contained in the originating process, Barr. Aorabee argued that the respondents themselves have not denied selling part of the land and are only contending that by customary rites, the estate of the late “Padopads” and the plaintiff are handed over to the 1st Respondent as their custodian.
He submitted that while it is left to the court to determine if humans can be handed over to others, Barr. Aorabee indicated that the decision of the Awunah family, as exhibited by the 1st Defendant, is discriminatory against the girlchild, an act that the law frowns at.
Richard Bem Ayilla, Esq, who appeared for the respondents, “vehemently opposed” the application for interlocutory injunction.
According to Barr. Ayilla, granting the application would amount to delving into the main issues (substantive) that are at the front burner of the suit.
He submitted that the law is trite that the court cannot grant an interlocutory application that will prejudge the main issue and urged the court to refuse the application and, in its place, give an accelerated hearing to the substantive suit.
Justice Kume, having heard the arguments, adjourned the case to September 17 for ruling. In passing, he advised counsel to the first Defendant to initiate an out-of-court settlement process on the subject matter.
