Justice Mojisola Dada of an Ikeja Special Offences Court, today, threw out the application filed by a property firm, Kasmal Property Limited and four others against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, over the land measuring 50.080 hectares situated at Ogombo village in Eti-Osa Local Government Area of Lagos State.
Besides Kasmal Properties Limited, others are Kasmal International Service Limited, Courtleigh Investment Limited, Pennek Nigeria Limited and Taiwo Shote as 1st to 5th Respondents/Applicants whose applications were dismissed.
It would be recalled that many of the landed properties being sold and marketed by Kasmal Properties Limited and Kasmal International Service Limited are firms promoted by the Late Prince Buruji Kashamu and his acolyte of real estate companies.
Other real estate companies are 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, Dream City by Revolution Plus, Lekki Pride 2 by Zylus Homes alongside others along Ogombo Road, Ajah.
The Commission had in its legal action marked ID/5579GCM/2022, obtained a temporary ex-parte order against the Respondents over the land measuring 50.080 hectares at Ogombo village in Eti-Osa which the Commission alleged is under investigation in respect of the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/912/2019.
The EFCC alleged that the landed property was the subject of 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.
The Respondents, therefore, approached the court and sought an order to vacate or stay the execution of the ex-parte interim forfeiture order made against them.
Apart from asking the court to set aside the exparte interim order granted against them, they also want the court to strike out the suit for being an abuse of court process.
In their application, the Respondents stated that the disputes on the land and alleged land grabbing are beyond the investigation and prosecutorial powers of the EFCC.
They further contended that there was a misrepresentation of material facts by the EFCC, non-disclosure of the pendency of the two suits, as well as no urgency warranting the grant of an ex parte interim forfeiture order on account of a petition received by the EFCC in January 2019.
Justice Dada in her ruling declared that the order of the Federal High Court is not binding on the court as rightly argued by the Applicant/Respondent, even as she added that it does not restrict the Applicant/ Respondent from taking the step it took in obtaining the Interim forfeiture order being complained against.
In her words: “The allegation of the Deponent to the Counter-Affidavits, Johnson Akpan, that there are several titles registered in the Land Registry, Alausa on this same land is not denied by any of the Respondents/Applicants. Rather, it was confirmed by them, especially, the 5th Respondent/Applicant who referred to and listed 11 different Deeds of Assignment on the same subject.
“It is also obvious that no arrest has been made against any of the Respondents/Applicants.
“As stated by the 5th Respondent/Applicant, 11 Deeds of Assignment on the same subject calls for drastic measures.
"Section 26 of the EFCC Act, 2004 (1) (a) provides that, “Any property subject to forfeiture under this Act may be seized by the Commission when the seizure is incidental to an arrest or search.”
Justice Dada, who declared that the EFCC's power is not limited to arrest stated: “What the Commission is doing can best be described as conducting a search.
“Section 44 (2) (k) of the 1999 Constitution as amended permits the temporary taking of possession of a property for any examination, investigation, or enquiry.
“This alone, fortified by the series of claims and disputes over the land, the subject of this suit with a very high level of public interest, is good reason for the Interim Forfeiture order sought for and obtained from this court.
“Therefore, I find no merit in any of the applications of the Respondents/Applicants, and the same is hereby dismissed. I so hold.”
All rights reserved. This material and other digital volumes on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from THE NEWS ACCELERATOR NETWORK.
For advert placement, please contact thenewsacceleratornetwork@gmail.com or 08033599492.
Post a Comment