LG funds: Court grants Osun AG’s request to withdraw suit against CBN, AGF

LG funds: Court grants Osun AG’s request to withdraw suit against CBN, AGF
LG funds: Court grants Osun AG’s request to withdraw suit against CBN, AGF

A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Wednesday, granted an application by the Attorney-General (AG) of Osun State to withdraw the suit he instituted against the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Accountant-General of the Federation (AGF), seeking to stop the Federal Government from releasing withheld local government allocations to the Local Government Chairmen and Councillors elected under the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC) during the tenure of former Governor Adegboyega Oyetola.

The trial Judge, Justice Emeka Nwite, in his ruling on the application, held that the plaintiff has the legal right to discontinue an action against the defendants in accordance with the law.

The judge however held that the assertion by the plaintiff that the defendants have no competent defense before the court was premature and legally unsustainable and that “the plaintiff’s reliance on it as a ground for discontinuance is therefore misconceived, I so hold”.

The court upheld the plaintiff’s notice of discontinuance filed on October 17, 2025, and struck out the grounds upon which the notice was predicated.

“The affidavit of facts is irregular, unnecessary and is hereby expunged from the record of the court. I make no order as to cost”, Justice Nwite held.

While moving the motion for discontinuance of the suit against the defendants on October 17, Counsel to the Osun AG, Musibau Adetumbi (SAN), said the aim of the suit, which sought to safeguard the money, had been defeated as the allocation had been moved out of the CBN by the defendants.

“On September 29, 2025, when the matter was heard, I told the court that our primary aim was to safeguard the money. Between then and now, we are sure that, notwithstanding the pendency of the case and order of status quo, the money was moved out of the CBN,” Adetumbi said.

He told the court that the notice of discontinuance was filed pursuant to Order 51 Rule 2 of the Federal High Court Rules, adding that any further arguments in the matter would amount to an academic exercise.

In their various submissions on the notice of discontinuance filed by the plaintiff, counsel to the defendants – CBN, Dr. Muritala Abdulrasheed (SAN), and that of the AGF, Tajudeen Oladoja (SAN) – did not oppose the application but faulted the averments in the affidavit of facts attached to the application.

According to Muritala, the plaintiff made damaging depositions in the affidavit of facts and added that the plaintiff should withdraw the affidavit along with the notice of discontinuance because some of the depositions in the affidavit were against persons who are not parties in the matter.

“Somebody can approach the court any day with a request for a Certified True Copy (CTC) of the process and may decide to use it against the persons mentioned in the plaintiff’s affidavit of facts,” the CBN lawyer stated, adding that the grounds upon which the notice of discontinuance was predicated were in bad faith.

He said the plaintiff got it wrong when he claimed that the 1st defendant had no competent response to the plaintiff’s originating summons, adding that a 12-paragraph counter-affidavit to the originating summons was filed on behalf of his client in May.

“While we are not opposing the withdrawal of the suit, we are against the grounds for the withdrawal,” Muritala said, and urged the court to expunge paragraphs 5 to 11 in the affidavit of facts filed by the plaintiff for being inaccurate and for referring to persons who are not before the court.

Counsel to the Accountant-General, Tajudeen, on his part, did not oppose the application for discontinuance because the plaintiff has the liberty to withdraw his case. “However, we are in vehement opposition to the 2nd ground upon which the application is predicated.

“The plaintiff is not under any obligation to predicate his application on any ground,” he said, adding that it is not true to say that the 2nd defendant has no competent defence in the matter.

He explained that his client filed an application for an extension of time to file a counter-affidavit in opposition to the plaintiff’s originating summons on September 8, which had not been determined due to the application filed by the plaintiff accusing the court of bias and challenging its jurisdiction.

He urged the court to strike out ground one of the notice of discontinuance and ground two, which stated that certain money had been paid, a claim the 2nd defendant had not been given an opportunity to react to.

Tajudeen also asked for a cost of N10 million against the plaintiff for bringing the 2nd defendant to court, for the court processes filed in the matter, and for wasting the precious judicial time of the court.

Responding, Adetumbi said a notice of discontinuance under Order 50 Rule 2 of the Federal High Court Rules does not attract cost, and added that the defendants had not filed any process before the court. “It is their default to have filed their process out of time. They cannot approach the court to ask for cost or expunging any of the grounds in the notice of discontinuance.”

The plaintiff’s counsel said the defendants were not entitled to cost because of their own default.