Court Orders IGP, Subordinates, To Vacate Foreshore Towers In Ikoyi

Justice Daniel Osiagor of the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has ordered the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and his officers to immediately vacate the premises of the famous Foreshore Towers in Ikoyi, Lagos.

Naija News reports that Justice Osiagor faulted the “flagrant disobedience of its order to maintain status quo given on the 23rd of May, 2023.”

It was following this he ordered “That the Inspector General of Police and his subordinates should hereby vacate the premises immediately and revert possession to the earlier possessee – the Plaintiff.”

The court also ordered the Bureau of Public Enterprise (BPE) to within seven days file in the court affidavit of facts “signifying their withdrawal from the premises in complying with the Court Order and undertaking not to enter the premises during the pendency of this case.”

The court’s order comes after an application brought by a law firm,  Rickey Tarfa & Co., on behalf of the Plaintiff, Associated Property Development Company Limited, praying the court to order the police to vacate the premises, which were forcefully sealed.

The Plaintiff had 2008 sued the Federal Ministry of Communication and Technology and six other defendants over a development lease granted to the company by the ministry.

However, along the line, Otunba Olusola Adekanola, Nigerian Telecommunication Limited; Federal Ministry of Environment, Housing and Urban Development; Implementation Committee on Alienation of Federal Government Property; Attorney General of the Federation, and Persons Unknown joined the lawsuit marked Suit No. FHC/L/CS/4767/2008.

The alleged forceful take-over of the prime property by a detachment of police operatives came against the backdrop of a ruling by the Federal High Court refusing an application by BPE to join in the ownership tussle of the property.

This platform understands that the police operatives had invaded the property and allegedly forced out all tenants before sealing it, saying they were acting on order.

The police also allegedly pasted several notices around the property, which read, “NOTICE! NOTICE!! NOTICE!!! THIS IS TO NOTIFY THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER BY THE PRESIDENCY (BUREAU OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES). FOR MORE INFORMATION AND INQUIRIES, KINDLY CALL 08054771463.”

Another notice read: “NOTICE TO ALL TENANTS: THIS IS TO ADVISE LEGITIMATE WITH PROVEN UP TO DATE RENTAL PAYMENT TO CALL 08023175000 TO VET YOUR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT FOR ACCESS TO YOUR OFFICES AND SHOPS.”

Meanwhile, it was gathered that Justice Osiagor had last year dismissed an application brought by BPE to join in the 15-year-old legal tussle over the Foreshore Towers.

Dismissing BPE’s application, the court held that the “Applicant is the agency that liquidated NITEL, the 3rd Defendant in the suit. It intends raising jurisdictional issues which I am informed is already subject of an interlocutory appeal at the Supreme Court.”

The court held that BPE’s proposed statement of defence and exhibits “rely primarily on documents and actions of parties already defending the suit,” adding that “From the avalanche of proposed documentary Exhibits, the Applicant intends to rely on documentary hearsay to make itself interested in this suit.”

Justice Osiagor: “I must add finally that Applicant’s proposed defence will eventually dovetail to relying on the defence Justertii which has no relevance in our property jurisprudence.”

The property development company had sought “A declaration that by the combined effect of the Lease Agreement dated 29th September 1983 between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant and as novated by the special clauses contained in the certificate of occupancy number 90/90/37, the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant is still valid, legal and subsisting.”

The company also sought “An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, officers or anybody acting through them from tampering with, alienating, or disturbing the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant.”

Justice Osiagor adjourned the substantive suit to October 30, 2023, “for Defence of the 1st and 6th Defendants.”