Arraignment Of Alleged Land Grabber, Firm Stalled In Lagos

The planned arraignment of an alleged land grabber, Alhaji Hameed Kasumu, over allegations of forcible entry and unlawful possession of a disputed land was on Thursday stalled due to the defendant’s absence.

Kasumu was charged alongside his company, Kings County Property Investment Limited, before the Lagos State High Court at the Tafawa Balewa Square by the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) on a five-count charge marked (LD/26902C/2025).

The police authorities filed the charge following a petition by a businessman, Muhammadu Wada, who accused the defendants of unlawfully occupying his property located at Plot 15, Alexander Avenue, Ikoyi, Lagos.

At the resumed hearing of the matter on Thursday before Justice Abdul-Raheem Muyideen, the prosecutor, Igile Oju, informed the court that the defendants had been duly served but had failed to appear.

Oju claimed, “We have filed a five-count charge against the defendants. The proof of service is before the court. They are aware of the charges, and I do not know why they are not here.”

However, the defence lawyer, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa (SAN), disputed this claim, stating that the first defendant was outside the court’s jurisdiction and had not been adequately served.

He also told the judge that he had filed a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction.

“We filed the application dated November 5, 2025, and served the prosecution in court. The subject matter concerns land allocated to the second defendant and has been litigated before. Where jurisdiction is being challenged, the physical presence of the first defendant is not mandatory,” Adegboruwa argued.

After reviewing the proof of service dated October 15, 2025, Justice Muyideen discovered that the charge was served on one Mrs Ruth.

The prosecution then confirmed that Mrs Ruth worked at the office of the first defendant, who owns the second defendant, Kings County Property Investment Limited.

After listening to the lawyers, the judge held that proper service had not been effected on the first defendant, although it could be deemed sufficient for the company.

The prosecutor then requested an adjournment to regularise the process.

The judge granted this request and adjourned the matter to January 13, 2026, for the hearing of the preliminary objection.