Levitikal vs Maryam Abacha: Why fair hearing matters in Nigeria’s property sector — Activist

Media professional and activist David Abakpa has urged for a fair hearing in the legal dispute between Levitikal Realties & Construction Limited and Maryam Sani Abacha over a property in Lagos. Abakpa highlighted the importance of property rights, commercial investments and the right of every party to a fair hearing. He explained that the dispute is more than just land ownership, as it involves contractual agreements, financial commitments and redevelopment challenges.

The development initially began as a Property Development Joint Venture Agreement, which was later supplanted by a power of attorney issued to Levitikal. Abakpa pointed out that the terms and legal effect of this power of attorney deserve careful consideration. He also noted that the developer faced difficulties securing vacant possession from existing tenants, settling outstanding taxes owed to the Lagos State Government, and covering demolition, excavation and other preparation costs.

Abakpa pointed out that the removal of fuel subsidies in 2023 led to a sharp increase in construction material, transportation and labor costs. Levitikal approached the government for additional space, resulting in the construction of two-bedroom and three-bedroom flats. Abakpa emphasized that these additional buildings were part of an attempt to manage project costs and complete the original nine units.

The land was reportedly valued at ₦400 million when the agreement was reached, with Levitikal investing over ₦17 billion and the landowners potentially owning ₦9 billion in the completed development. Abakpa stressed that Levitikal's investment should be examined alongside the evidence, including contractual terms, financial records, construction costs and valuation reports.

He also questioned the presence of the Abacha family representatives on the premises during construction, which could be relevant to understanding when additional development became known to the parties. Abakpa urged the parties to allow available documents, communications, approvals and evidence to determine the issues at hand.

Abakpa highlighted the plight of subscribers who may have paid for units in the development and stressed the need to resolve the dispute in a timely manner. The Federal High Court had granted an ex parte order appointing a receiver/manager over the development, which must be respected until the parties pursue their respective legal remedies.

The court proceedings should scrutinize the entire history of the relationship between the parties, including the original joint venture agreement, power of attorney, vacant possession challenges, outstanding taxes, rising construction costs, the additional land and buildings, and the circumstances surrounding the alleged 50:50 sharing demand.