Justice Akintayo Aluko of the Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos, has urged parties in the multimillion-dollar Lagos-Calabar Coastal Road dispute to halt further action in respect of investors’ property.
The court also held that it would not issue any interim order yet. The case, marked FHC/L/CS/1063/25, was filed by members of the Foreign Investors Network of Nigeria, a group of expatriate investors who claim ownership of an 18.8-hectare estate located at Okun-Ajah, Eti-Osa Local Government Area of Lagos State.
The estate, known as Winhomes Global Services Estate, is alleged to be under threat of demolition following the ongoing realignment of the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Road project.
The plaintiffs accused the Federal Government and its contractors of “unlawful interference” with their property, alleging that the defendants “failed to follow due process” when altering the road’s alignment in a manner that now “cuts through the developed estate.”
The four defendants listed in the suit are the Attorney-General of the Federation, who is the first defendant; the Minister of Works; the Controller of Works, Lagos and Hi-Tech Construction Company Limited, respectively.
In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs said they are the “lawful owners” of the land, measuring approximately 18.8385 hectares, and that their title is backed by a Certificate of Occupancy and a valid survey plan (Plan No. BOM/3538/001B/2024/LA/TOP).
They further alleged that at no time were they given any statutory notice, demolition order, or opportunity to be heard before their property was allegedly marked for destruction.
This, they argued, constitutes a “gross violation” of their constitutional rights as guaranteed under Sections 36 and 44 of the 1999 Constitution (as altered).
The plaintiffs are asking the court to determine whether the defendants acted lawfully in realigning the coastal road between Chainage 16 + 500 and Chainage 17 + 500, an adjustment they claim brings the project into direct conflict with their estate.
Among other reliefs, they are seeking a declaration that the marking of their property for demolition without a legal basis is unlawful, an injunction restraining the defendants from further acts of interference, and an order awarding $250 million in damages against the defendants jointly and severally.
At the resumption of proceedings, all parties were represented; however, the court confirmed that only the second and fourth defendants had been served with the originating processes.
Plaintiff’s counsel, Valerian Nwadike, requested an adjournment to allow time for full service on all parties.Nwadike prayed the court to grant an injunction, restraining the defendants and their agents from further demolition of their properties, after a large part of it had already been demolished.
But counsel for the fourth defendant, Melchisedek Anselem, denied the allegations, insisting that the subject matter is intact and that the plaintiffs had placed nothing before the court to substantiate those claims.
He said his client was only served the day before and was still within time to respond to the originating summons and any motion on notice. Similarly, counsel to the first to third defendants, S.A. Usman, maintained that his clients had not yet been served with all relevant court processes and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim of demolition as “unsupported by evidence.”
Justice Aluko, in a brief ruling, said that “the court has a duty to protect the res (the property in dispute), but as it stands, there is no proof before me that any demolition has occurred.
“Therefore, the court will not make any preservative order at this stage.” The judge stressed that the primary duty for now was to ensure proper service of court processes on all parties so that the matter could proceed fairly.
The court adjourned the case until November 27, 2025, for further hearing. By that date, all defendants are expected to have been served with the originating summons and to file their responses.
Meanwhile, a coalition of Civil Society Organisations (CSO) outside the court premises protested the non-payment of compensation and what they described as illegal realignment.
They were armed with placards with inscriptions such as “$250 million gone in this renewed hope; Release the abducted Obanla; Mr President, we are not against Coastal Road, but we are victims of impunity, who are stripped of Justice.”
One of the leaders of the coalition, Shina Loremikan, while speaking during the protest, said: “We are delighted that our issue is before the court and we want the court to critically look at this issue.
“What are you paying a property owner for an acre of land? Is it the same thing that you are paying a property owner of a three-bedroom flat and a property owner of a duplex?
“We are saying this is the 21st century. We need to do things the way it should be done so that we can further encourage foreign investments.” He warned that this attitude would discourage people who intend to invest in Nigeria from looking elsewhere. He noted that other countries like Ghana, South Africa, Egypt, and Morocco are competing for investors.
“If we continue like this under the excuse that we are providing infrastructure for the people and they don’t know the ABC of that infrastructure, we’ll be having problems.”
Another lawyer, Tahir Daramola, also declared that the Federal Government did not fulfil all the requirements needed to acquire the land from the investors, who, according to him, invested over $250 000 million.
