Forcible entry and detainer is intended to afford a speedy means of recovering possession of real property. A two-month delay to await a regularly-scheduled jury term would utterly frustrate the petitioner's statutory remedy. Schuminsky v. Field, 1980 OK 22, 606 P.2d 1133. DONE BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CONFERENCE THIS 11TH DAY OF MAY, 2009.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court interprets this statute to mean that the district court has exclusive jurisdiction to oust "a hold-over tenant" and that the trial court is limited by statute to hearing only matters concerning possession and/or rents or damages to the premises in a forcible entry and detainer proceeding. Ramirez v. Baran, 1986 OK 76, ¶ 5, 730 P.2d 515, 517 ("[S]tatutory prescriptions regarding forcible entry and detainer provide the exclusive procedure for ousting a hold-over tenant."); see generally Schuminsky v. Field, 1980 OK 22, 606 P.2d 1133 (finding that a tenant's counterclaims based on landlord's alleged breaches of a lease agreement could not be asserted in the landlord's forcible entry and detainer case but could be brought by a separate action). ¶ 19 The trial court's April 2007 order disposed of Landlord's forcible entry and detainer claim leaving only issues of rent to be determined by the Panel.