Justice Mojisola Dada of the Lagos State Special Offences Court in Ikeja has dismissed a suit filed by a property firm, Kasmal Property Limited and four others against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), seeking to recover a land measuring 50.080 hectares situated at Ogombo village in Eti-Osa local government, Lagos.
Aside Kasmal Properties Limited, others are Kasmal International Service Limited, Courtleigh Investment Limited, Pennek Nigeria Limited and Taiwo Shote as first to fifth respondents/applicants whose application were dismissed.
The EFCC had in a suit marked no: ID/5579GCM/2022 obtained a temporary forfeiture order against the five respondents (companies and Shote) over the disputed land, which the commission alleged is under investigation in respect of the suit FHC/ABJ/CS/912/2019.
The anti-graft agency alleged that the landed property was subject matter in the suit pending in Abuja and also Lagos in the suit no LD/771/2008 between Adeniran Adedokun Ventures Nigeria Limited & others against Pentagon Real Estate Investment Limited & others wherein the respondents/ applicants and Adedokun ventures, the petition at whose instance EFCC is acting are adverse parties.
Many of the lands being sold and marketed by Kasmal properties Limited and Kasmal International Service Limited companies promoted by late Prince Buruji Kashamu and his acolyte of real estate companies include Pennek Estate, Reservile Estate By Coutleigh Investment Limited, Angle Blue Estate By Atco Homes, Pipi Island Estate By Big C Real Estate Property Limited, Signature By Pwan Homes.
Others are Dream City By Revolution Plus, Lekki Pride 2 By Zylus Homes and others along Ogombo Road Ajah from Abraham Adesanya, which are now forfeited interim to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission pending investigation and arraignment of accused persons as trespassers have been warned to keep off.
Apparently not satisfied with the order, the five respondents approached the Lagos State High Court, asking for an order to vacate or stay the execution of the ex-parte interim forfeiture order made against them.
They also urged the court to strike out the suit for being an abuse of court.
In their seven grounds in support of the suit, the respondents stated that the dispute on the title of the land and alleged land grabbing are beyond the investigation and prosecutorial power of the EFCC.
They submitted that there was misrepresentation of material facts by the EFCC, non- disclosure of the pendency of the two suits and as well as no urgency warranting the grant of exparte interim forfeiture order in May 22 on account of petition received by EFCC in January 2019.
However, Justice Dada in her ruling said the order of the Federal High Court is not binding on the court as rightly argued by the applicant/respondent.
The judge held that it does not restrict the applicant/ respondent from taking the step it took in obtaining the Interim forfeiture Order being complained against.
