Okutepa SAN Files Preliminary Objection, Challenges Competence of Lagos Govt Appeal in Dr. Olaleye Case
The long‑running legal tussle between Lagos‑based medical practitioner, Dr. Olufemi Olaleye, and the Lagos State Government has taken a fresh turn at the Supreme Court of Nigeria. His lead counsel, Chief J.S. Okutepa, SAN, on 29 September 2025, filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection urging the apex court to strike out the state’s appeal for want of competence.
In the objection, Chief Okutepa argued that the appeal was incurably defective, incompetent, and amounted to an abuse of judicial process. He anchored his objection on five distinct grounds, each of which, he maintained, deprived the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
The first ground raised was jurisdiction. Okutepa submitted that the appeal was predicated on facts and mixed questions of law and fact. By virtue of Section 233(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), such appeals cannot lie to the Supreme Court without prior leave. In this case, he stressed, no leave was ever sought or obtained.
Flowing from this, the second ground was the failure of the Lagos State Government to obtain leave either from the Court of Appeal or directly from the Supreme Court. Without such leave, he contended, the appeal was fundamentally flawed and incompetent, leaving the apex court without jurisdiction to consider it.
The third ground challenged the record of appeal, which Okutepa said was compiled unilaterally by the state without involving the defence team. He argued that this violated the Supreme Court Rules and the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeals) Practice Directions, 2013, thereby breaching the constitutional guarantee of fair hearing.
The fourth ground related to the late filing of the state’s brief of argument. The Lagos State Government filed its brief on 13 August 2025, well outside the time prescribed by the Supreme Court Rules, 2024. Okutepa described the lapse as incurable, insisting that it could not be remedied by amendment or extension of time.
Finally, he argued that the appeal had become merely academic. The Court of Appeal had earlier discharged and acquitted Dr. Olaleye, holding that the prosecution’s evidence was contradictory, largely hearsay, and tainted by ulterior motives. Since the state did not specifically challenge those findings, they remain binding. Okutepa therefore urged the Supreme Court to strike out the appeal in its entirety, describing it as “incurably incompetent and devoid of any utilitarian value.”
