1 week ago
4
Media professional and activist David Abakpa has called for a fair hearing in the ongoing legal dispute between Levitikal Realties & Construction Limited and Maryam Sani Abacha over the redevelopment of a property at No. 68 Molade Okoya Thomas Street, Victoria Island, Lagos.
Abakpa said the dispute raised important questions about property rights, commercial investments and the need for courts to consider the full circumstances surrounding contractual disagreements.
In his assessment of the controversy, he highlighted the challenges allegedly encountered by Levitikal during the redevelopment, including difficulties in securing vacant possession, outstanding land-related taxes, rising construction costs and the financial implications of the removal of the fuel subsidy in 2023.
He noted that the court had granted interim relief and appointed a receiver/manager over the development pending further proceedings, stressing that the order must be respected but should not be mistaken for a final determination of the dispute.
“That distinction matters because the history of the development goes beyond a simple disagreement over ownership of land,” Abakpa said.
According to him, media publications indicated that the parties initially entered into a Property Development Joint Venture Agreement before a power of attorney was subsequently issued to Levitikal, superseding the earlier arrangement.
He said the terms and legal implications of the power of attorney required proper consideration in determining the rights and obligations of both parties.
Abakpa explained that the property was not an empty site ready for immediate construction, as existing tenants had occupied it for a considerable period, making redevelopment difficult.
He said the process of securing vacant possession was eventually resolved after Levitikal took over the development process.
The developer also reportedly incurred expenses relating to outstanding land-related taxes payable to the Lagos State Government, demolition, excavation and other preparatory activities before construction could commence.
Abakpa said the project subsequently encountered additional financial difficulties following the removal of the fuel subsidy in 2023, which triggered increases in the costs of construction materials, transportation, labour and other inputs.
According to him, Levitikal approached the government for additional space in response to the financial pressures, subsequently obtaining approval for the construction of two-bedroom and three-bedroom flats on the additional land.
“This development is important to the dispute,” he said, arguing that the additional buildings emerged from efforts to manage the financial burden of the project and create the capacity to complete the original nine units.
Abakpa put the value of the land at approximately N400 million at the time of the agreement, describing it as the landowners’ contribution to the development.
He further cited estimates indicating that Levitikal had invested more than N17 billion in the project, attributing part of the reported expenditure to the economic changes following the removal of the fuel subsidy.
By the same estimates, he said the landowners’ stake in the completed development represented a projected N9 billion in potential earnings.
However, Abakpa maintained that the developer’s reported investment should be subjected to verification rather than accepted or dismissed without scrutiny.
“The figure should be tested through contracts, bank records, invoices, construction records and other documentary evidence,” he said.
He added that if the investment was established, it would become an important consideration in determining the parties’ contractual and financial rights.
“This would no longer be simply a question of who owns the land. It would also involve the contractual and financial rights of a developer that committed substantial resources to the project,” he said.
The activist also raised questions about the circumstances surrounding the construction of the additional flats, noting that representatives of the Abacha family reportedly visited the site to monitor the project’s progress while the buildings were being constructed.
He said the timing of any objection to the additional development was relevant to the dispute.
“When was the additional development first questioned? What was communicated during the site visits? Was any objection raised while construction was ongoing?” he asked.
Abakpa, however, cautioned against settling such questions through public speculation, insisting that they should be resolved through documents, communications and evidence presented before the court.
He also called attention to the interests of subscribers who had paid for units in the original nine-unit development and were reportedly expecting to take possession as the project approached completion.
He warned that a prolonged legal dispute could affect these subscribers, who were not parties to the disagreement.
“ That does not determine the legal rights of either side, but it demonstrates why the dispute requires careful and timely resolution,” he said.
Abakpa said fair hearing required that allegations concerning the developer’s performance, approvals and completion of the project be examined alongside the entire history of the parties’ relationship.
He listed the original joint venture agreement, the subsequent power of attorney, the process of securing vacant possession, outstanding taxes, site preparation, the impact of rising costs, the additional land and the construction of the additional flats among the issues requiring judicial consideration.
He also drew attention to the circumstances surrounding the reported demand for a 50:50 sharing arrangement.
On the court proceedings, Abakpa explained that an ex parte order was made in the absence of the defendant, Levitikal, and that such orders were generally used to preserve the status quo pending further proceedings.
He stressed that although an interim order did not settle the substantive questions in a dispute, it remained binding until set aside by a competent court.
“Nonetheless, a court order subsists until it is set aside and must be obeyed by the party affected by it,” he said.
Abakpa maintained that both parties were entitled to present their cases and seek remedies available under the law.
“Levitikal does not need public sympathy. It needs the opportunity to present its documents, explain its investment, answer the allegations against it and have its contractual rights determined on the evidence,” he said.
He added that Maryam Abacha was equally entitled to present her case and seek whatever remedies the law provided.
“Fairness cannot mean hearing only one side. It must mean hearing both sides fully,” Abakpa said.
He urged that the dispute be determined by the parties’ agreements, actions, documentary evidence and applicable law rather than their public profiles.
“Until that process is complete, Levitikal deserves a fair hearing,” he said.10 Suggested Headlines
English (US) ·