The High Court of Justice, Ekiti State, has delivered a landmark judgment in Mr. Adekunle Esan v. Hon. Richard Apolola & Hon. Tony Kehinde Adaramodu, affirming citizens’ right to access public records under the Ekiti State Freedom of Information Law 2011.
Justice A.A. Adeleye struck out the respondents’ preliminary objection and ordered the Chairman of Ekiti South West Local Government, Hon. Richard Apolola, and the lawmaker representing Ekiti South West Constituency 1, Hon. Tony Kehinde Adaramodu, to provide detailed reports of budgetary allocations, constituency projects, and their official scorecards.
Mr. Esan had written to the officials on August 5, 2025, requesting information on constituency projects and budgetary allocations. When no response was received within the statutory 14 days, he approached the court in January 2026.
The applicant had sued under the Constitution and the Ekiti State Freedom of Information Law, seeking access to the scorecards of the Chairman of Ekiti South West Local Government Area and the lawmaker representing Ekiti South West Constituency I, as well as records of budgetary allocations, constituency project funds and other administrative information requested in letters dated August 5, 2025.
The respondents argued that the suit was statute-barred. They further argued that the suit was incompetent and that the applicant lacked locus standi, contending that the action was filed outside the 30-day period provided by law after their alleged failure to respond to the information request.
However, Justice Adeleye dismissed the preliminary objection challenging the competence of Suit No. HAD/9/2026.
Justice Adeleye held that the High Court had jurisdiction under Section 33 of the Ekiti State Freedom of Information Law.
The court further ruled that Section 22(1) of the law does not make the 30-day period a mandatory condition for instituting an action, noting that the word “may” in the provision is permissive rather than mandatory and does not extinguish a right of action after 30 days.
The judge also found the applicant’s affidavit evidence to be “cogent, unambiguous and believable,” noting that the respondents failed to effectively controvert the allegations. Consequently, the court granted the applicant’s substantive reliefs.
The judge held: “In my humble view, the provisions of section 22 (1) of the Freedom of Information Law Ekiti State does not make it a condition precedent that failure to apply for a review within 30 days extinguishes the right of action. The word “may” employed in the provision is a permissive word. It is not mandatory.
“I find that the cause of action is not statute barred. l am at one with applicant’s counsel that section 22 (1) does not declare any action filed outside 30 days to be incompetent. It gives the court the latitude to fix further time before or after the expiration of 30 days.”
In the final orders, the court declared that the applicant is entitled to access from the respondents, being respectively the elected chairman of Ekiti South West Local Government Area and the member of the House of Assembly representing Ekiti South West Constituency 1, their scorecards as elected public officers, comprehensive reports of all budgetary sums allocated to the local government area and constituency, and sums allocated and disbursed as constituency projects and administrative and other information requested in the letters dated August 5, 2025.
The court further declared that the respondents’ failure, refusal and/or neglect to provide the requested information within the statutory period was unlawful, illegal, and a violation of the applicant’s right of access to public information under the Freedom of Information Law, 2011.
Justice Adeleye then ordered the respondents to forthwith provide the requested scorecards, comprehensive budgetary reports, constituency project disbursement records, and other requested information within the time stipulated by the court.
However, the court refused the claim for damages and declined the request for N10 million compensation. The prayer for N5 million as cost of retaining solicitors was also not granted.
The judge ordered that parties should bear their respective legal representation.
“It is hereby declared that the respondents’ failure, refusal and/or neglect to provide the requested information in the letters dated 5 August 2025 within the statutory period is unlawful, illegal, and a violation of the applicant’s right of access to public information under the Freedom of Information Law, 2011,” the court ruled.
“It is ordered that the respondent’s being respectively chairman of Ekiti South West local government area of Ekiti State and member of the House of Assembly representing Ekiti South West constituency 1 shall provide forthwith (a) their scorecards as elected public officers, (b) comprehensive reports of all budgetary sums allocated to the Ekiti South West local government area and Ekiti South West constituency 1 cum sums allocated and disbursed as constituency projects and administrative and other information as requested in the applicant’s letters to the 1st and 2nd respondents respectively dated 5th August 2025.”
“No damages awarded. Parties are to bear their respective cost,” the court added.
