AIRTELAFRI₦6,300.00• 0.00%
DANGCEM₦1,066.70• 0.00%
MTNN₦844.00• 0.00%
BUAFOODS₦760.60• 0.00%
BUACEMENT₦297.00• 0.00%
SEPLAT₦16,000.10• 0.00%
FIRSTHOLDCO₦136.85• 0.00%
ARADEL₦1,400.00▲ 1.67%
HBMNG₦355.00• 0.00%
ZENITHBANK₦127.80▼ 0.16%
GTCO₦128.00▲ 0.23%
TRANSCOHOT₦290.50• 0.00%
STANBIC₦168.00• 0.00%
PRESCO₦2,045.30• 0.00%
NB₦75.00▼ 1.32%
NESTLE₦2,750.00• 0.00%
GEREGU₦825.70• 0.00%
UBA₦43.00▲ 0.12%
INTBREW₦9.50• 0.00%
ACCESSCORP₦28.40▲ 1.43%
DANGSUGAR₦68.00▼ 0.87%
TRANSPOWER₦178.00• 0.00%
ETI₦70.50• 0.00%
FIDELITYBK₦20.00▼ 1.72%
WEMABANK₦31.00▲ 2.65%
OKOMUOIL₦1,276.20• 0.00%
GUINNESS₦423.00• 0.00%
FCMB₦11.00▲ 0.45%
UNILEVER₦102.50▲ 0.49%
UACN₦184.00• 0.00%

GDN DESKTOP 1

Advertisement

KC Luxury challenges court’s order preserving Lagos properties

Court

Businessman Afolabi Michael Kazeem, popularly known as KC Luxury, has challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, Lagos, over an interim order preserving his properties, alleging that the proceedings leading to the order breached his constitutional right to fair hearing.

Kazeem, who is standing trial alongside two others over alleged cocaine trafficking and money laundering, is asking the court to strike out the proceedings, vacate its September 25, 2026 order and direct the immediate release of the properties.

At yesterday’s proceedings, his counsel, Chief Emefo Etudo, told Justice Musa Kakaki that the defence filed an application on October 13 challenging the court’s jurisdiction after learning of the preservation order through a newspaper publication.

Etudo said the defence had requested a certified true copy of the September 25 proceedings to establish the circumstances under which the order was made and support a further affidavit.

Advertisement

In the application, Kazeem’s lawyers argued that their client was not served with a hearing notice before the order was granted, denying him an opportunity to oppose the application. They contended that this violated Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees fair hearing.

Citing judicial authorities, including Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341, the defence argued that the alleged procedural irregularity undermined the court’s jurisdiction and rendered the proceedings invalid.

EFN Non Oil Export

Counsel for the applicant, Abu Ibrahim, told the court that the matter was for a report.

He said the court had directed the applicant to publish the preservation order in a widely circulated newspaper.

Advertisement

Etudo also raised concerns about Kazeem’s health, telling the court that his client was in a critical condition.

“My Lord, just as a form of information to the court, the first defendant is between life and death as we speak,” he said.

The lawyer alleged that Kazeem was taken to the Lagos University Teaching Hospital (LUTH) on Tuesday before being transferred by the police to the Police Hospital. He also claimed that the businessman was experiencing serious lung complications.

The concerns were reinforced in an affidavit sworn by Kazeem’s wife, Adepeju Afolabi, who alleged that his health had deteriorated.

A medical report dated September 15, 2026, issued by the NDLEA medical unit at the Murtala Muhammed International Airport Command, identified Kazeem as a 49-year-old man with chronic asthma.

It documented recurrent breathlessness, wheezing and chest pain despite treatment and recommended specialist respiratory assessment.

The defence also alleged that the NDLEA had initiated steps to sell the properties covered by the order.

Kazeem and his co-defendants, Boniface Freeman Ochoche Sule and Ikechukwu Ekugo Patriarch, face a 22-count charge bordering on conspiracy, cocaine trafficking and money laundering. They pleaded not guilty.

The NDLEA alleged that the defendants conspired with two other suspects arrested in London to export 184.5kg of cocaine concealed in five consignments shipped through a Lagos-based courier company.

The agency further alleged that Kazeem facilitated the shipment and paid N13.2 million for the consignment through a company account.

Advertisement

Justice Kakaki had earlier rejected the defendants’ bail applications, citing the seriousness of the alleged offences and the risk of their absconding, but ordered an accelerated hearing of the criminal case.

The judge adjourned the matter to December 3 for hearing.

Join Our Channels

Taboola Recommendation Widget