Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa of the Federal High Court in Lagos has fixed July 2 for hearing in a committal motion against Alhaji Sikiru Alabi-Macfoy in the Lagos State Central Mosque leadership case.
The suit, filed by the Registered Trustees of the Jamat-Ul-Muslimeen Council of Nigeria (Lagos Central Mosque), challenges Alabi-Macfoy’s appointment as Baba Adinni of Lagos and Chairman of the Executive Council.
The plaintiffs contend that his appointment was made without the consultation or approval of the Chief Imam, the mosque’s spiritual head.
The plaintiffs, represented by Dr. Kemi Pinheiro (SAN), filed a Form 49 – notice seeking committal proceedings against Alabi-Macfoy pursuant to Section 72 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act and the Judgment (Enforcement) Rules.
Counsel to the first and second defendants, Adekunle Oyesanya (SAN), informed the court of their application to modify the interim orders previously granted.
He argued that the enrolled order did not accurately reflect the court’s proceedings at the last sitting.
Pinheiro objected, describing the application as “convoluted,” as it sought both a modification and a setting aside of the same order.
He argued that the first defendant, having willfully disobeyed the court’s orders, should not be granted the right of audience.
Pinheiro said the plaintiffs’ pending committal application against the first and second defendants should take precedence.
He accused the first defendant of deliberately frustrating the fifth defendant’s efforts to comply with the court’s interim orders, which directed the fifth defendant, whose authority remains unchallenged to administer the mosque’s affairs pending the resolution of the suit.
Oyesanya maintained that the enrolled order did not match the record of proceedings, justifying their request for modification.
When the court asked if he was present during the issuance of the order, he confirmed he was.
Justice Lewis-Allagoa then reiterated that the order was validly made and must be obeyed, stressing the court’s responsibility to enforce its directives.
The court ruled that both the plaintiffs’ committal application and the defendants’ motion for modification would be heard together on July 2.
At the heart of the conflict is Alabi-Macfoy’s controversial appointment, which has sparked sharp divisions within the mosque’s leadership.
The plaintiffs argued that his installation as Baba Adinni is invalid as it has not been sanctioned or officiated by the Chief Imam through the traditional turbaning ceremony.
They warned that the situation threatens to disrupt peace within the mosque community.
The plaintiffs have urged the court to issue preservatory orders to avert potential chaos and preserve order.
They argued that the court’s inherent powers allow it to take interim measures, even in the face of jurisdictional objections.
However, counsel for Alabi-Macfoy and the second defendant opposed the application, insisting that the court lacked jurisdiction and cannot issue any orders until that challenge is resolved.
