Atuwatse III: Delta Court Dismisses Prince Emiko’s Case Against Olu Of Warri

Delta Court has dismissed Prince Emiko’s case against Olu of Warri, Atuwatse III.

Glamtush reports that a Delta State High Court in Asaba has dismissed the legal challenge brought by Prince Oyowoli Emiko against the succession of Ogiame Atuwatse III as the Olu of Warri.

This online news platform understands that Prince Oyowoli, son of the former Olu Ikenwoli, had contested the legitimacy of the current monarch’s ascension to the throne.

The court, in its ruling on case A/119/2023, determined that the claimant’s suit was statute-barred, effectively upholding the preliminary objection raised by the defendants. The presiding judge dismissed the suit “in its entirety,” dealing a decisive blow to Prince Oyowoli’s claims.

The court highlighted several crucial aspects in its decision:

The withdrawal of the previous suit (W/104/21) was found to be tactical rather than conciliatory, with the court noting it was not “borne out of a reason for peaceful co-existence” but rather an attempt to secure “another opportunity for a bite” through the new filing.

The court deemed the relief claims in the current suit premature, emphasizing that any grievances should have been presented during the 21-day period provided under Section 19 of the Traditional Rulers Council Chieftaincy Laws.

A procedural error was noted regarding the timing of the Executive Council’s letters of recommendation, which were issued after the suit was filed.

Legal Representation
The case saw extensive legal representation from various parties:

• O. L. Ovwhoriole appeared for the Claimant/Respondent.
• A. M. Oriakhi led a team of lawyers representing the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 24th-27th Defendants.
• Other notable representations included O. F. Oberuoma for the 3rd Defendant and P. E. Eze for the 5th-8th Defendants.

Implications
This ruling represents a significant victory for Ogiame Atuwatse III, effectively strengthening his position as the Olu of Warri. The court’s decision appears to have brought clarity to the succession dispute that has been a source of tension within the traditional institution.

The ruling also serves as a reminder of the importance of following proper procedural channels in traditional succession matters, particularly regarding the timing of challenges and the necessity of adhering to established chieftaincy laws.