A First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) in London has dismissed a case filed by one Tali Shani, which challenged the attempt by human rights lawyer Chief Mike Ozekhome to register a property allegedly gifted to him by the former Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, General Jeremiah Useni.
The Tribunal threw out the case on the grounds that the applicant likely never existed and that the evidence presented, including identity documents and a death certificate, was forged.
The controversy over the ownership of the property at 79 Randall Avenue, London, began when Chief Mike Ozekhome applied to register a property transfer dated August 2021 from “Tali Shani,” who purportedly executed the deed.
However, before the process was concluded, the applicant, claiming to be Tali Shani, came forward and denied authorising the transfer. She told the Tribunal that she was the registered proprietor of the property and was unaware of the transfer, asserting that she did not execute it.
Following this controversy, the Land Registry referred Chief Ozekhome’s (the Respondent’s) application to register the transfer of the property to the Tribunal on February 27, 2023.
In his defence, Chief Ozekhome, representing himself after his legal team withdrew, argued that his acquisition of the property was a legitimate transfer.
He contended that Tali Shani never existed and was a phantom identity created by someone not involved in the proceedings to fraudulently take control of the property.
Chief Ozekhome stated that the property transfer to him was a gift in recognition of legal services provided to the former Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, General Jeremiah Useni.
He denied any financial transactions related to the property transfer, asserting it was not for monetary gain.
He called the former Minister as a witness. In his testimony via video link, the late General Useni stated that he had purchased the property in 1993 with his savings, intending it as a home for his family.
He denied any connection to a “Tali Shani” owning the property, claiming he first met a man by that name only about seven or eight years ago, which was unrelated to the property ownership.
After a thorough examination, the Tribunal struck out the applicant’s case based on fraudulent foundations and refused the transfer application to Chief Ozekhome.
The Tribunal held that Tali Shani’s claims regarding the purchase of the property in 1993 were implausible, stating that Shani claimed to have purchased the property at age 20, but his financial explanations were unconvincing.
The Tribunal noted that the purchase documents indicated a different name, “Philips Bincan,” and a purchase price of £110,000, contradicting Shani’s claims.
Additionally, the Tribunal found that General Useni’s testimony directly contradicted Shani’s assertions about their relationship and property management.
It concluded that the evidence strongly indicated that General Useni was the true owner of the property, and his oral evidence was consistent and credible despite his frail condition.
The Tribunal stated, “The property was registered under a false name, ‘Tali Shani,’ likely as part of a scheme involving General Useni.”
In conclusion, the Tribunal held that both parties failed to prove their claims regarding the property.
It stated that neither Tali Shani nor the alleged purchaser was who they claimed to be and that the real owner of the property was General Jeremiah Useni, who is now deceased.
The Tribunal, therefore, directed the Chief Land Registrar to reject the application for the transfer of ownership.
Within Nigeria, multiple cases of alleged land/plot fraud, forged documents, conspiracy etc. are ongoing.
One example is in Lekki, Lagos, where two lawyers and a developer are indicted for forgery and willful destruction of property in connection with a disputed Certificate of Occupancy.
In many of them, false documents (death certificates, forged IDs, phony title deeds, etc.) are central to the dispute.
Impersonation, whether of the owner, of identity, or via documents, is also a recurring theme.
Legal ownership is often challenged or defended via tribunal or courts using documentary proof (or exposing the lack thereof).
Victims are sometimes abroad, remote, or otherwise unable to appear easily, complicating enforcement or proof, much like in the Ozekhome case.
