The Federal High Court in Abuja, yesterday, adjourned further hearing in the asset forfeiture suit filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against properties linked to former Bayelsa State Governor, Timipre Sylva, until July 16.

Justice Obiora Egwuatu fixed the date after counsel to the anti-graft agency, Oluwaleke Atolagbe, informed the court that the commission had yet to file its report of compliance with an earlier interim forfeiture order.

The court had, on April 24, granted an interim forfeiture order covering nine properties allegedly linked to Sylva following an ex parte application filed by the EFCC in suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/607/2026.

The properties, located across highbrow areas of Abuja, including Maitama, Wuse II, Garki, Mpape, and Dakibiyu, comprise residential duplexes, office complexes, and multiple blocks of flats.

At Monday’s proceedings, several lawyers appeared for parties seeking to contest the forfeiture. Benson Ibezim represented parties linked to properties in Dakibiyu and Garki, including buildings currently occupied by the National Information Technology Development Agency.

A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Alex Ejiesieme, appeared for parties connected to a Maitama duplex and an office complex, alongside eight flats located on Misratah Street, Wuse II.

Counsel Ajayi Olowo represented interests tied to two blocks of flats situated at Thaba Tseka Crescent, Wuse II, while Emmanuela Imonikeh appeared for parties linked to a standalone duplex at Palm Springs Estate, Mpape.

The EFCC disclosed that about six parties had already filed affidavits to show cause why the properties should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.

However, the commission told the court that no claimant had come forward in respect of three properties, including a 10-unit block of flats in Wuse Zone 4, a six-unit apartment building at Mubi Close, and a standalone duplex on Nile Lake Street in Maitama.

Atolagbe further revealed that the EFCC had filed a motion seeking final forfeiture of the unclaimed properties, but the court noted that the application had yet to appear in its records.