A legal action has been initiated at the Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos, seeking an order to prevent the Federal Government and its contractors from carrying out the demolition of an 18.8-hectare residential estate located in Okun-Ajah, Eti-Osa Local Government Area.
The estate is reportedly in the path of the proposed Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway.
The case, referenced as FHC/L/CS/1063/25, was brought before the court by the Foreign Investors Network of Nigeria, which claims ownership of the property in question. The defendants named in the suit include the Attorney General of the Federation, the Minister of Works, the Lagos State Controller of Works, and HITECH Construction Company. The plaintiffs are seeking interim relief to halt any demolition activities until the court delivers a final ruling on the matter.
In its originating processes, the plaintiff asserted ownership of the 18.8385 hectares of land, backed by a Certificate of Occupancy and a valid survey plan (Plan No BOM/3538/001B/2024/LA/TOPO). It accused the government of realigning the road through its estate without proper approval or due process.
The landowners are asking the court to determine whether the government and its contractors acted lawfully in altering the route of the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Road between Chainage 16 + 500 and 17 + 500, a shift that allegedly brings the project into direct conflict with their developed property, Winhomes Global Services Estate.
The plaintiff claims that “at no time was it issued with any statutory notice, demolition order, or opportunity to be heard,” adding that the actions of the defendants constitute a “gross violation of the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights as enshrined in Sections 36 and 44 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).”
According to the suit, the land, measuring 18.8385 hectares, is fully documented with a valid Certificate of Occupancy, a Governor’s consent, a survey plan (Plan No: BOM/3538/001B/2024/LA/TOPO), and relevant building approvals. The estate has also reportedly been subscribed to by multiple allottees under power of attorney agreements.
In the written address supporting the summons, counsel to the Plaintiff, Valerian Nadike of Valerian Viannay & Partners, argued that “no notice or hearing was afforded before the commencement of the destructive markings on its property,” adding that such omission violates the principle of audi alteram partem and fundamental human rights.
“The attempted demolition of the Plaintiff’s estate without a lawful acquisition process, valid gazette, or compensation, amounts to executive lawlessness,” Nadike stated in court filings, citing Ojukwu v. Governor of Lagos State (1986) as authority. “No state authority, no matter how well-intentioned, can ride roughshod over constitutional rights.”
The Plaintiff is seeking nine reliefs, including: A declaration that the actions of the Defendants in “marking for destruction and demolition the Plaintiff’s property without recourse to any legal or lawful basis is illegal, null and void.”
An injunction restraining the Defendants from further acts that interfere with the estate, and
An order awarding ₦900 million in damages for what the Plaintiff describes as the “unlawful marking, threat of demolition, and interference with its property.”
In part of the originating summons seen by our reporter, the Plaintiff asked:
“Whether the actions of the 2nd to 4th Defendants in seeking to demolish and destroy the property of the Plaintiff at Okun-Ajah, despite not having contravened the coastal road alignment, is not a discrimination against the Plaintiff and a contravention of Section 42 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
It further contends that the realignment of the road was not in compliance with the 2004/2006 approved alignment, and that any attempt to enforce a new route affecting the estate amounts to “an illegality and is therefore null and void ab initio.”
Among the documents attached to the suit are copies of the Certificate of Occupancy, survey plan, Governor’s clearance, and photographs of the property showing markings allegedly made by agents of the government, and letters of protest previously sent to the Ministry of Works.
The Plaintiff is also seeking a mandatory order directing the Federal Ministry of Works to “fully comply with the law with regard to the issuance of statutory notices, if at all there is any contravention,” before taking any enforcement or demolition action.
“This matter raises fundamental questions about how far the government can go in executing infrastructure without trampling on the rights of citizens and law-abiding companies. If such actions go unchecked, they set a dangerous precedent,” Nadike submitted.
No date had been fixed for a hearing; however, the defendants were said to have thirty days from the date of service to file their appearance and response.
