Court Questions Title in Ikoyi Land Dispute as Firm Seeks Joinder

A tense legal battle over prime real estate in Ikoyi intensified on Wednesday as the Lagos State High Court sitting in Osborne, Ikoyi, reviewed competing claims in a long-running ownership dispute involving Net Construct Nigeria Limited and Amytorix Company Nigeria Limited, while also considering an application for joinder by Casafina Capital Limited.

Presiding Judge, Justice Kayode Ogunjobi, carefully examined the basis of Casafina Capital’s claim after the firm sought to be joined as a party in the suit, arguing that its interests in the disputed land could be directly affected by the outcome of the case.

Casafina told the court that it legally acquired about 13,000 square metres of the disputed property from Alma Beach Estate Limited (in receivership) under a development agreement dated July 10, 2020. It maintained that the land forms part of a larger parcel covered by a Certificate of Occupancy in Eti-Osa Local Government Area of Lagos State.

In an affidavit presented before the court, the company insisted it has a substantial proprietary interest and has remained in possession of the land since acquisition, adding that it has already developed 22 housing units on the site. It argued that excluding it from the proceedings could result in injustice and multiple lawsuits over the same property.

However, during proceedings, Justice Ogunjobi raised concerns over the root of Casafina’s title, noting that its claim appeared to be derived from the second defendant in the case. The judge questioned whether a party could assert rights beyond what its vendor lawfully transferred.

Counsel to Casafina maintained that the firm’s interest is legitimate and central to the dispute, warning that any settlement or judgment between the existing parties could directly affect its significant investment if it is not joined.

Opposing the application, counsel to the claimant argued that Casafina is not a necessary party, stating that there is no direct claim against it and that its joinder would complicate rather than clarify the case. The defence further contended that the application lacked sufficient documentation to establish a valid root of title.

Counsel to the second defendant also opposed the request, alleging that Casafina defaulted on payment obligations, which led to the termination of its development arrangement. He urged the court to dismiss the application and advised the firm to pursue a separate action if it believed it had a valid claim.

Tension escalated in court when Casafina’s counsel alleged that portions of the disputed property had recently been demolished, including about eight housing units, prompting a plea for the preservation of the subject matter pending determination of the suit.

Justice Ogunjobi acknowledged the need to maintain the status quo but noted that questions surrounding title and competing interests remained unresolved.

The matter was subsequently adjourned to June 4 for further hearing.