Controversy over recall of disputed land casefile

The recall of the casefile of a disputed land allegedly by the Lagos State Chief Judge, Justice Kazeem Alogba is now generating controversy within the judiciary.

This was because the withdrawal, which sources described as sudden, was done after the case had progressed substantially over a period of time before the trial judge, Justice Akintunde Savage.

It was also gathered that the development which occurred last Wednesday was done without the knowledge of the claimants nor their counsels in the matter.

The case was between Nasco Town Limited (claimant) and one Mr Abiodun Ariori, Chief Michael Mojisola Cole family and others(the defendants), was the first scheduled for hearing that day, Wednesday.

The counsels in the matter included a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Chief Anthony George-Ikoli, a former Attorney General of Bayelsa State.

Read Also: Tinubu leads tributes as Nigerians mourn iconic Galadima

As the court prepared to commence hearing for the day, the registrar approached the bench and whispered to the judge.

Following the development, the trial judge, Justice Savage announced that the file had been recalled by the Chief Judge and advised counsels to await further direction on whether it would be returned or reassigned.

Chief George-Ikoli (SAN), surprised by the development, sought clarifications from the court.

Justice Savage simply replied that the Chief Judge  called for the file, and that it is with him.

Chief George-Ikoli made further attempt to know why the case file was recalled, with the judge insisting that he does not know or if the file would come back to his court.

 But Chief George-Ikoli persisted that  it is only fair that when a file is recalled back from a court by the Chief Judge, the parties in the matter ought to be informed and told the reasons.

But the trial judge persisted that the Chief Judge has the power to call for any file at any time.

The judge then directed the registrar to call the next case.

Worried by the development, Chief George-Ikoli subsequently petitioned the Chief Judge, seeking clarification.

The petition, signed by Ms Ayotunde Shabi of his chambers, noted that the case—filed in 2020—had yet to progress significantly beyond the pre-trial stage.

It also expressed concern that the sudden withdrawal of the file, without explanation, had heightened the anxiety of the claimants and raised a lot of questions begging for answers.

The petition also referenced an affidavit deposed to by Chief George-Ikoli on April 16, detailing the events in court the previous day.

In the affidavit , Chief George-Ikoli urged the Chief Judge to clarify the purpose of the request, stressing that such information was necessary to properly advise and reassure their clients, especially given the indefinite adjournment of the case.

Nasco Town Limited also petitioned the Chief Judge, alleging possible undue external influence.

In a letter signed by its Executive Coordinator, Dr. Mustapha Sulaiman, the company expressed concern that while the defendants appeared to have prior knowledge of the file’s withdrawal, Nasco, the claimants were neither notified nor given an opportunity to respond to any complaint or petition that may have prompted the action.

Nasco outlined its long-standing possession of the land, stating that it had been in peaceful and uninterrupted possession since 1978 under a lease granted by the Federal Government.

The company said it had carried out extensive development on the property, including land reclamation, construction, and the granting of a sublease to Michelin Tyres Limited in 1981.

 It said that the land was later designated a Free Trade Zone following its application, and that development of its industrial section was underway before the dispute arose.

According to the company, this possession was disrupted in 2018 when Mr Ariori, along with members of the family of late Chief Cole, allegedly invaded the land with armed policemen and thugs, claiming to enforce a 1997 Consent Judgment in favour of the Chief Cole, to which Nasco was not a party.

Nasco further stated that investigations showed the Consent judgment had already been executed on a different parcel of land, the Chief before his demise, a position it said was supported by official records and even acknowledged by one of the families involved. It also noted that the late Chief Cole neither claimed nor visited the disputed land during his lifetime.

The company said its initial legal action in 2018 was handled by Justice Olaide Olayinka; it was delayed due to difficulties in serving the defendants, who allegedly evaded service, until the Judge retired.

In the present suit, filed in 2020, the defendants allegedly continued to evade service until the court granted an order for substituted service, four years later, despite which the matter has been plagued by repeated adjournments and procedural delays caused by the defendants.

Against this backdrop, Nasco described the sudden withdrawal of the case file as deeply troubling, particularly given what it perceived as unequal access to information between the parties.

It warned that the situation could suggest external interference, citing claims by Mr Ariori of connections to the current Attorney General, Lagos State.

The disputed land is registered as No. 25 at Page 25, Volume 81 of the land registry, as delineated in Survey Plan No. JLS/23/78. Despite being in court for several years, the case has made little substantive progress.

Both petitions now place the burden squarely on the Chief Judge to explain the rationale behind his intervention—an explanation that may determine not just the fate of this case, but broader public confidence in the administration of justice in Lagos.