The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has ordered the Inspector-General of Police and his officers to immediately vacate the premises of popular Foreshore Towers in Ikoyi, Lagos.
In a ruling issued by Justice Daniel Osiagor, the court frowned at the “flagrant disobedience of its order to maintain status quo given on the 23rd of May, 2023,” and ordered “That the Inspector General of Police and his subordinates should hereby vacate the premises immediately and revert possession to the earlier possessee – the Plaintiff.”
The court also ordered the Bureau of Public Enterprise to within 7 days file in the court affidavit of facts “signifying their withdrawal from the premises in complying with the Court Order and undertaking not to enter the premises during the pendency of this case.”
Justice Osiagor adjourned the substantive suit to October 30, 2023 “for Defence of the 1st and 6th Defendants.”
The order followed an application brought by the law firm of Rickey Tarfa & Co. on behalf of the Plaintiff, Associated Property Development Company Limited, praying the court to order the police to vacate the premises which were forcefully sealed.
The Plaintiff had in 2008 sued the Federal Ministry of Communication & Technology and six other defendants over a development lease granted the company by the ministry.
Joined in the lawsuit are Otunba Olusola Adekanola; Nigerian Telecommunication Limited; Federal Ministry of Environment, Housing and Urban Development; Implementation Committee on Alienation of Federal Government Property; Attorney General of the Federation, and Persons Unknown. The suit is marked Suit No. FHC/L/CS/4767/2008.
While the plaintiff was represented by Abubakar Shamsudeen who led Ngozi Ngonadi and I. S. Matesun, the 2nd (Adekanola) and 3rd (NITEL) defendants were represented by Dr. Roland Otaru SAN who led J. A. Oladapo. The 4th (Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing & Urban Development) and 5th (Implementation Committee on Alienation of Federal Government Property) defendants were represented by I. Eigbe.
The alleged forceful take-over of the prime property by a detachment of police operatives came against the backdrop of a ruling by the Federal High Court refusing an application by BPE to join in the ownership tussle over the property.
The police operatives had invaded the property and allegedly forced out all tenants before sealing it, saying they were acting on order.
They also pasted several notices around the property which read, “NOTICE! NOTICE!! NOTICE!!! THIS IS TO NOTIFY THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER BY THE PRESIDENCY (BUREAU OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES). FOR MORE INFORMATION AND INQUIRIES, KINDLY CALL 08054771463.”
Another notice read: “NOTICE TO ALL TENANTS: THIS IS TO ADVISE LEGITIMATE WITH PROVEN UP TO DATE RENTAL PAYMENT TO CALL 08023175000 TO VET YOUR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT FOR ACCESS TO YOUR OFFICES AND SHOPS.”
Justice Osiagor had last year rejected an application brought by BPE to join in the 15-year-old legal tussle over Foreshore Towers.
Dismissing BPE’s application, the court held that the “Applicant is the agency that liquidated NITEL the 3rd Defendant in the suit. It intends raising jurisdictional issues which am informed is already subject of an interlocutory appeal at the Supreme Court.”
The court held that BPE’s proposed statement of defence and exhibits “rely primarily on documents and actions of parties already defending the suit,” adding that “From the avalanche of proposed documentary Exhibits, the Applicant intends to rely on documentary hearsay to make itself interested in this suit.”
Said Justice Osiagor: “I must add finally that Applicant’s proposed defence will eventually dovetail to relying on the defence Justertii which has no relevance in our property jurisprudence.”
The property development company had sought “A declaration that by the combined effect of the Lease Agreement dated 29th September, 1983 between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant and as novated by the special clauses contained in the certificate of occupancy number 90/90/37, the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant is still valid, legal and subsisting.”
The company also sought “AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, officers or anybody acting through them from tampering with, alienating, or disturbing the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant.”
