By Ado Oyeyemi
A media professional and activist, David Abakpa, has called for a fair hearing in the ongoing dispute between Maryam Sani Abacha and Levitikal Realties & Construction Limited over a property at No. 68 Molade Okoya Thomas Street, Victoria Island, Lagos.
Abakpa urged the parties to allow the legal process to run its course, stressing that an interim court order appointing a receiver/manager over the development should not be mistaken for a final determination of the substantive dispute.
The dispute centres on the redevelopment of the property under a joint venture arrangement between the landowners and Levitikal, the construction company responsible for the project.
In his assessment of the controversy, Abakpa said the court would need to examine the history of the agreement, the developer’s financial commitments, the circumstances surrounding additional construction and the contractual obligations of both parties before reaching a final decision.
He noted that media reports indicated that the parties initially entered into a Property Development Joint Venture Agreement, followed by a power of attorney issued to Levitikal, which reportedly superseded the earlier arrangement.
According to him, the legal implications of the subsequent document are among the issues requiring proper consideration in determining the rights and responsibilities of the parties.
Abakpa argued that the project involved challenges beyond the ownership of the land, including difficulties in securing vacant possession because of existing tenants, outstanding land-related taxes payable to the Lagos State Government, demolition and excavation expenses, and other preliminary construction costs.
He added that the economic disruption following the removal of the fuel subsidy in 2023 reportedly increased the cost of building materials, transportation, labour and other construction inputs, putting additional pressure on the project’s finances.
Abakpa said Levitikal subsequently sought approval from the government for additional space as part of efforts to manage the financial challenges and facilitate completion of the original nine housing units.
He stated that two-bedroom and three-bedroom flats were later constructed on the additional land, arguing that the circumstances surrounding the expansion should be examined alongside the original development agreement.
The activist also cited estimates indicating that the land was valued at about N400m when the agreement was reached, while the developer reportedly invested more than N17bn in the project.
He further put the landowners’ potential stake in the completed development at about N9bn, although the figures would require independent verification through relevant financial and construction records.
Abakpa maintained that the reported investment should neither be accepted without scrutiny nor dismissed without examining the available evidence.
He said contracts, bank statements, invoices, construction records and other relevant documents would be necessary to establish the actual amount invested and determine the financial obligations of the parties.
The activist also raised questions about the circumstances surrounding the construction of the additional flats, particularly whether representatives of the Abacha family were aware of the work during their visits to the project site and whether objections were raised while construction was ongoing.
He, however, cautioned against drawing conclusions from such questions without examining the relevant correspondence, agreements and evidence before the court.
Abakpa said the dispute could also affect subscribers who had paid for units in the original development and were awaiting completion and possession, warning that prolonged litigation could create further uncertainty for those who were not directly involved in the disagreement.
On the interim court order, he stressed that an ex parte order, which is made without hearing the other party at that stage, does not necessarily resolve the substantive issues in a case.
He explained that such orders could be issued to preserve the subject matter of a dispute pending further proceedings, adding that an existing court order must be obeyed until it is set aside or otherwise varied by a competent court.
Abakpa called on the court to consider the entire history of the relationship, including the original joint venture agreement, the subsequent power of attorney, the challenges associated with vacant possession, the payment of taxes, construction expenses, the additional land and the circumstances surrounding the expanded development.
He said allegations concerning the developer’s performance, approvals and completion of the project should be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as the claims relating to its investment and contractual rights.
The activist emphasised that both parties should have the opportunity to present their documents, explain their positions and respond to the allegations against them.
He said the outcome should be determined by the terms of the agreement, the actions of the parties, the evidence presented and the applicable law, rather than their public profiles or influence.
Abakpa added that Levitikal should be given the opportunity to substantiate its reported investment and defend its contractual position, just as Maryam Abacha was entitled to present her claims and seek appropriate remedies under the law.
He maintained that the appointment of a receiver/manager at the interim stage should not be treated as a final judgment on the parties’ competing claims.
READ ALSO
- NBBF Election: Glover Promises Free, Fair Poll, Clears Dr Abdullahi, 2 others
- US lists names of 24 Nigerians to be deported
- Nigerian filling stations hike pump price
- EPL: Man City punish 10-man Liverpool in dominant win at Anfield
- Adedibu Biopic Sparks Legal Dispute As Oloketuyi Rejects Family’s Demands
According to him, a fair and evidence-based resolution would be essential to protecting the legitimate interests of the parties and restoring certainty to the development.
