The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) has sealed the premises of some real estate firms in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) over alleged failure to comply with regulatory directives issued after consumer complaints.

Speaking during the enforcement exercise in Abuja yesterday, FCCPC Deputy Director of Surveillance and Investigations, Marvin Nadah, said the action was part of the commission’s ongoing efforts to curb obnoxious and exploitative practices in the real estate sector.

He disclosed that the commission had earlier issued compliance notices to the affected firms, directing them to address complaints brought before the agency by consumers.

“We had requested and directed certain actions to be taken to provide redress to consumer complaints that were before us. That is in line with Section 154 of the FCCPC Act,” he said.

Nadah explained that the companies failed to comply with the directives, prompting the commission to seal their business premises in line with its statutory powers.

He stated that the complaints involved consumers who paid for properties that were either not delivered or where refunds ordered by the commission were not made.

“In one case, consumers had paid for properties that were not delivered. In another, after reviewing the matter, we ordered the company to refund the consumer, but that was not carried out,” he stated.

Nadah noted that the two firms that were affected by the enforcement action operate in the real estate sector, including land sales, property development and management.

On whether the courts were involved in the process, Nadah maintained that the commission acted within the provisions of the law.

“Section 150(4) empowers us to seal any premises when there is non-compliance with a compliance notice that has been issued,” he said.

He added that the initial notice was issued in June 2025 and that engagements had taken place with the companies since then, but compliance was still not achieved.

On possible next steps, Nadah said the minimum expectation from the affected firms was compliance with the commission’s directives, adding that further actions, including prosecution, could still be considered.

On the condition that must be met before the delayed premises are reopened, Nadah stated that compliance is the barest minimum.

He advised consumers to exercise caution when engaging in property transactions by carefully reviewing contractual terms and seeking professional guidance where necessary.

“Our duty and mandate remain to protect and promote the interests of consumers,” he added.