By Kolawole Abe
The available contractual documents and recent court proceedings in the dispute over No. 68 Molade Okoya Thomas Street, Victoria Island, Lagos, appear to lend significant weight to the position of the original property owner, Dr. (Mrs.) Maryam Sani Abacha, that the property was entrusted to Levitikal Realties & Construction Limited strictly to develop 18 units of three (3) bedroom apartments and was never transferred to Levitikal as its unrestricted commercial asset.
Under the agreement, nine completed apartments were to accrue to Levitikal as consideration for undertaking the development, while the remaining nine were to be retained by the landowner. Upon completion of the project and by the terms of the JVA, Mrs. Abacha will execute and sign Deeds of Assignment in favour of Levitikal or its nominees only for the nine units due to Levitikal under the agreement. Since there is a dispute on the development, it therefore means that any purchaser will have to wait until the resolution of the dispute.
The worrisome issue, therefore, is the developer's attempt, at converting a contractual development agreement, into such that seek to extend, same into ownership or unrestricted control of the underlying land.
The controversy was heightened by the unilateral partitioning of the development, into over 44 Units (of 1 bedroom, 2 bedrooms and 3 bedrooms) from the original and agreed 18 apartments. This raised fundamental questions over the contractual authority for the additional development, the ownership of the additional interests and the authority under which they may have been marketed or dealt with.
To prevent the Abacha’s from finding out, Levitikal used all means possible to prevent them from gaining access to the development despite several requests and demands.
The EFCC is already involved in the matter as investigation is ongoing into the sale of the partitioned units to unsuspecting third parties. From previous publications circulated on several platforms, it was reported that the EFCC had earlier marked the property based on ongoing investigation.
Another dispute pending in respect of the development relates to the attempt of Levitikal to register a Power of Attorney granted to it for the development and to use the registration as a tool to taker over the property. The dispute is presently at the High Court of Lagos State. The suit was instituted by Providus Bank Limited and Levitikal. The Abachas who were not made a party initially, subsequently became aware of the suit and by the Order of the High Court of Lagos State has been joined to the suit.
On September 29, 2026, Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa of the Federal High Court in Lagos ordered the appointment of a receiver/manager to take possession, custody and control of the property. The court also restrained Levitikal, its directors, agents and representatives from selling, transferring, assigning, mortgaging, leasing, charging or otherwise encumbering the property. The Order was made pending when all arbitration is resolved.
Although the order is interim and does not finally determine the substantive claims, it represents an important step towards preserving the disputed property pending the determination of arbitration.
At the heart of the controversy is a relatively straightforward contractual question: Did the original agreement give Levitikal ownership of the land, or merely the right to develop it under agreed terms?
If the original bargain was for an 18 unit development, with nine units constituting the developer's consideration, any subsequent expansion of the project and creation of additional units would require clear contractual justification.
For now, however, the evidence available gives considerable weight to Mrs. Abacha's contention that she remained the owner of the underlying land and that Levitikal's mandate was to defined development arrangement, not an unrestricted transfer of proprietary control.
The case consequently raises an important broader question for Nigeria's real-estate sector and rights granted to developers under joint venture agreements. If any of the units have been sold to any purchaser, the purchaser needs to keep a keen interest on the matter.
