A Lagos High Court sitting at the Ikeja Judicial Division has refused the application of a Lagos traditional ruler, Oba Sheriff Adeshina Bello, the Onigbanko of Igbankoland asking the court to order an industrial giant, NASCO to maintain status quo over a land the company have occupied for over 44 years.
Rather than grant the application of the Oba, the trial judge, Justice A.M Lawal granted accelerated hearing of the case and adjourned till February 6, 2026 to hear the preliminary objection of NASCO and other applications to serve the interest of justice.
Oba Bello is not the first claimant to approach courts to challenge the occupation of the land in dispute by NASCO. In what appears like forum shopping, similar suits over the same land had been filed before Justice M.A Savage who on May 16, 2024 granted an interlocutory injunction in favour of the NASCO, restraining the Defendants from carrying out any act of ownership on the land. It was filed by Abiodun Ariori, Prosperous Ariori Golden Ventures Limited, Pertinence Limited, Terralords Nigeria Limited, Unknown Persons, Mrs Oluwaremilekun Ariyo (nee Cole), Mr Oluwasegun Cole, Oladapo Cole, Mr Tanimowo Cole, and Dr Islamia Efumbowale Cole (The Head and Principal members of Chief Michael Mojisola Cole family) as the Applicants. Not satisfied, they approached Justice Aishat Opesanwo during judges vacation in 2024 for the same relief. The judge directed them back to Justice Savage’s court, saying the suit was not an urgent matter which vacation courts are meant to serve. Justice Lawal will therefore be the third court to entertain the same case in recent times.
The land itself is located at Abule Oshun in Ojo Local Government Area of Lagos State. It forms part of a large parcel of land which was originally acquired by the Federal Government via the Federal Government Notice 1138 published in the Official Gazette No. 44 Vol. 64 of 8 September 1977. The land was leased to NASCO by the Federal Government by virtue of a Lease Agreement dated the 5th day of June 1978 and registered as No. 92 on Page 92 of Volume 1739 of the Lands Register.
The land was undeveloped in all ramifications before it was leased to NASCO, and the company has since the lease agreement invested substantially in the development of the land through the obtaining of requisite outline and development approval from both the State and Federal Government, clearing and sand filling, construction of estates and access roads, development of Free Trade Zone, Jetty and Terminal Facility, maintaining the integrity of the land and meeting its financial obligations to the government as it relates to the land.
According to NASCO, it has since been on the land exercising acts of ownership and undisturbed possession until 2017 when the Defendants led by Mr. Abiodun Ariori started laying claims on the land and entering into transactions with third parties on some parts of the land. It was in view of the Defendants’ alleged acts of trespass that NASCO sued them before the High Court of Lagos State seeking inter alia a declaration of title and perpetual injunction.
It is the first time the case is coming before Justice Lawal. It is listed as ID/5709LM/2025. Oba Bello, through his lawyer filed an originating summons asking for a declaration by the court that the compulsory acquisition of their land by the then Federal Military Government is null and void after over 44 years of the said acquisition. He further claimed that they were not properly or adequately compensated at the time of the acquisition.
However, the lawyer to NASCO, Chief Anthony George-Ikoli SAN countered by filing a preliminary objection claiming that the action is statute barred as the Claimant stood by and waited for over 44 years before instituting the action challenging the said acquisition and that the claimant has no locus standi to institute the action.
Furthermore, the senior lawyer stated the fact that an order of Interlocutory Injunction had earlier been given by the same High Court of Lagos State by another judge on the same subject matter. Hence, it would be an abuse of court process to grant injunction again on the same land while one subsists.
At the proceedings, the claimant’s lawyer told the court that he had just received the preliminary objections of the defendant. He further informed the Court that he was only served on the previous day, December 3, 2025, with two Notices of Preliminary Objection and two Counter-Affidavits in response to the Originating summons and Motion for Interlocutory Injunction by the 1st Defendant’s Counsel, George-Ikoli & Okagbue. He therefore requested time to respond to the said processes.
Justice Lawal hinted that when there is a Preliminary Objection before the court, other applications are put on hold until the determination of the Preliminary Objection.
Counsel to the Claimant thereafter applied that, pending his response to the 1st Defendant’s processes, the Court should order all parties to preserve the res and maintain the status quo or the 1st Defendant’s Counsel should give an undertaking that Status quo would be maintained.
In response, Chief George-Ikoli opposed the application, arguing that such an order must be founded on a proper application, and locus standi. He said that the claimant had no legal basis to make the request, having stood by for over 44 years before approaching the court to contest the acquisition of the land (subject matter of the suit). He further submitted that there exists already, a subsisting order of injunction on the same subject matter granted by Justice Savage of the same High Court, which is a court of Co-ordinate Jurisdiction and that it would therefore be inappropriate and an abuse of court process for the Court to grant another injunctive order.
In his ruling, Justice Lawal upheld the Chief George-Ikoli’s position, ruling that the order sought could not be granted at this stage. Instead, the court granted an accelerated hearing date for the Preliminary Objections to be taken.
Subsequently, Defendant’s lawyer informed the Court that he had a housekeeping application seeking to regularize the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st Defendant against the Claimant’s Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction. He moved the application in terms, and it was granted on the condition that the requisite default fees be paid within seven days.
The trial judge thereafter adjourned the suit till February 5, 2026 for hearing of the Preliminary Objection.
Dear readers, we really need your support to keep on serving you with authoritative, truthful, and juicy stories everyday. For your support, please reach out to the editor @gavelinternational66@gmail.com