The Court in its sitting on November 13 also discharged an interim order, restraining the defendants from disturbing the plaintiff’s possession rights pending the determination of the main suit.
The trial judge, Ganiyu Safari however, ordered all parties to maintain status quo pending the determination of the substantial suit.
Sued as defendants in the case alongside the bank are the Nigerian Police Force, the Inspector General of Police, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Trebesak Limited and the Divisional Police Officer (DPO), Ilasan Police Station.
Based on the application of applicant’s counsel, Mr Gbenga Ajala, the court had at the last hearing joined the last two defendants, who are Trebesak Nigeria Ltd, the company that allegedly bought the land previously from the bank and SP Shem Olorunfemi, the DPO of Ilasan Police Station who was allegedly being partisan in the land tussle.
The land in contention is situated at Plot 1, Block XXE, Ojomu Chieftaincy Layout, Ajiran, Eti Osa Local Government Area of Lagos State.
The land measures approximately 5000 square meters.
The bone of contention is that the plaintiff alleged that the first defendant sold the land to the firm for N500 million sometime in 2021 and executed a valid deed of assignment and other titles.
But the bank on the other hand claimed that it sold the land to the plaintiff in error as it had earlier sold the same land to Trebesak Nigeria Ltd (now the 5th defendant in the suit) as far back as June 2018.
In a nine paragraph affidavit deposed to by the company secretary of the claimant, Mrs Opelusi Olubukola, she swore: “Since the payment of the purchase price of the land known and being at Plot 1, Block XXE, Ojomu Chieftaincy Layout, Ajiran, Eti Osa Local Government Area of Lagos State by the claimant to the first respondent, the first respondent have been taking some discreet steps to interfere with the constitutional right of the plaintiff over the property.
“Sometime in August 2023, I was in the property on inspection tour with some investors who are partnering with the applicant to develop the property and some group of men approached us claiming to be from the first respondent.
“The said men who refused to identify themselves claimed they came to inspect the land with a view to selling it to another buyer.”
Olubukola further averred that she briefed the Managing Director of the claimant who also confirmed that he had noticed a similar discreet move.
She said her fear was confirmed on October 3, 2023 when she visited the land in company of prospective investors and saw uniformed men suspected to be policemen on patrol on the land and its environs.
“The applicant strongly suspects the first respondent’s act of gazumping must have resulted in the recent threat to take over the property,” she averred.
Based on these threats, the applicant approached the court to enforce its fundamental rights to own property pursuant to the Fundamental Human Rights (Enforcement Procedure) rules 2009, the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as altered), and the African Charter of Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement Act) cap A9 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.
However, the first respondent insisted it sold the land in error, having sold it to the fifth respondent, Trebesak Nigeria Limited long before the sale to the claimant.
In a 24 paragraph affidavit deposed to by Felix Elugbadebo, a staff of the first respondent, he countered the pleadings of the claimant as “false and do not represent the facts of the case.”
“I know for a fact that the land measuring…does not belong to the applicant as same had been sold to Trebesak, having purchased the subject from the 1st respondent as far back as June 2018.
“I know for a fact that the subject property was sold to the applicant per incuriam,” Elugbadebo swore.
He acknowledged that the bank received N500 million from the applicant for the property.
“The 1st respondent admits that the sum of N500 million was originally paid to it by the applicant under the erroneous impression that the subject property was available for sale, whereas in fact, the title and possession in the subject property resided (and still resides) in Trebesak,” he averred.
