The ongoing legal dispute over the property at No. 68 Molade Okoya Thomas Street, Victoria Island, Lagos, has raised important questions about property rights, commercial investments and fair hearing.
Media professional and activist David Abakpa highlights the challenges allegedly faced by Levitikal Realties & Construction Limited during the redevelopment of the property, including existing tenants, land-related taxes and rising construction costs following the removal of the fuel subsidy in 2023.
At the centre of the dispute is Maryam Sani Abacha and Levitikal Realties & Construction Limited, the developer involved in the redevelopment of the property.
The court has granted interim relief and appointed a receiver/manager over the development pending further proceedings.
That order should be respected. But it should also be understood for what it is: an interim measure, not a final determination of the substantive dispute.
That distinction matters because the history of the development goes beyond a simple disagreement over ownership of land.
According to media publications, there was an initial Property Development Joint Venture Agreement, followed by a power of attorney issued to Levitikal which superseded the earlier arrangement. The terms and legal effect of that power of attorney deserve proper consideration in determining the rights and obligations of the parties.
The development came with significant challenges
The property was not simply an empty site waiting for construction. Existing tenants had remained on the property for a considerable period, creating an obstacle to redevelopment. The process of securing vacant possession proved difficult and was eventually resolved after Levitikal took over the development process.
The developer also had to deal with outstanding land-related taxes to the Lagos State Government, demolition, excavation and other preparatory costs before construction could proceed.
Then came the economic shock of 2023.
Following the removal of the fuel subsidy, the cost of construction materials, transportation, labour and other inputs rose sharply. The economics of projects already underway were significantly affected.
In response to the financial pressure, Levitikal approached the government for additional space. Approval was subsequently obtained, and two-bedroom and three-bedroom flats were constructed on the additional land.
This development is important to the dispute.
The additional buildings did not emerge in isolation. They came in the context of an effort to manage the financial burden of the project and create the capacity to complete the original nine units.
The land was valued at approximately N400 million at the time of the agreement, which represented the landowners’ contribution.
Since then, he said in his findings, the developer had reportedly invested over N17 billion, a figure he attributed in part to the economic changes that followed the removal of the fuel subsidy in 2023.
By the same estimates, the landowners’ stake in the completed development was worth a projected N9 billion in potential earnings.
What happened to the additional buildings?
This is perhaps one of the most important questions in the dispute.
Representatives of the Abacha were visiting the project to monitor its progress, including while the additional flats were being constructed.
If the construction was visible during these visits, then the timing of any objection becomes relevant.
When was the additional development first questioned?
What was communicated during the site visits?
Was any objection raised while construction was ongoing?
These are not questions that should be settled through public speculation.
They should be answered through the documents, communications and evidence before the court.
The investment cannot simply be ignored
Levitikal’s reported investment of more than ₦17 billion should neither be accepted unquestioningly nor dismissed casually.
The figure should be tested through contracts, bank records, invoices, construction records and other documentary evidence.
If the investment is established, however, it becomes an important part of the dispute.
This would no longer be simply a question of who owns the land. It would also involve the contractual and financial rights of a developer that committed substantial resources to the project.
The interests of subscribers must also be considered.
The original nine units were approaching completion, with subscribers who had paid for their units expecting to take possession. A prolonged dispute could therefore affect people who are not parties to the disagreement.
That does not determine the legal rights of either side, but it demonstrates why the dispute requires careful and timely resolution.
Fair hearing must mean hearing the whole story
The allegations concerning the developer’s performance, approvals and completion of the project should be examined.
But the same scrutiny must be applied to the entire history of the relationship.
The court should consider the original joint venture, the subsequent power of attorney, the issue of vacant possession, the taxes and site preparation, the effect of the 2023 inflation shock, the additional land, the construction of the additional flats and the circumstances surrounding the 50:50 demand.
Fair hearing is a fundamental right of every citizen. Where it is denied, injustice follows. No party ought to be condemned without or before being heard in the case.
An Exparte Order is sparingly granted as it sought for or obtained in the absence of the defendant. In this case, the Federal High Court made an Exparte Order appointing a Receiver/Manager in respect of the property in the defendant, Levitikal.
Usually an Exparte Order is made by courts to maintain the status quo so as to preserve the rights of the parties. Nonetheless a court order subsists until it is set aside and must be obeyed by the party affected by it.
An interim order does not settle the substantive questions.
Levitikal does not need public sympathy.
It needs the opportunity to present its documents, explain its investment, answer the allegations against it and have its contractual rights determined on the evidence.
Maryam Abacha is equally entitled to present her case and seek whatever remedies the law provides.
Fairness cannot mean hearing only one side.
It must mean hearing both sides fully.
The objective should not be to determine who has the stronger name or greater public profile. It should be to determine what the parties agreed, what they did, what the evidence establishes and what the law requires.
Until that process is complete, Levitikal deserves a fair hearing.