A Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the sealing of a disputed waterfront property in Lekki, Lagos, following allegations of fraud, regulatory breaches and threats to public peace involving a high-value land deal worth more than ₦2.5bn by Mr Elvis Emecheta Eze at Lekki Peninsula Scheme, Lagos.

The case highlights growing risks in Nigeria’s high-end real estate market, where weak documentation, overlapping authority and alleged double sales continue to expose investors to huge losses.

The order followed an application by Mr Henry Ugonna Orabuchi, a Lagos-based businessman, who told the court that sealing the property was necessary to prevent a breakdown of law and order while investigations continue.

The court granted the ex parte application, directing that all activities on the property be suspended pending the determination of the suit.

How the dispute began

According to court filings, Mr Orabuchi said he was introduced to Mr Emecheta in 2022 as the owner of a waterfront property in Lekki.

He said he was informed that part of the land was waterlogged and required sand-filling, after which the reclaimed land would be sold at ₦800,000 per square metre.

Following negotiations, Mr Orabuchi said he agreed to purchase 3,000 square metres for ₦2.4bn.

He added that he later paid an additional ₦100m, at Mr Emecheta’s request, to “fast-track” the sand-filling and documentation process.

What the contract promised

Mr Orabuchi said the agreement was executed based on documents presented by Mr Emecheta, including a Lagos State Certificate of Occupancy covering the main property adjoining the waterfront.

“It was expressly represented that the Governor’s consent for my portion would be derived from the root of title of the main property,” he said.

He explained that access to the reclaimed land was to be created through the main property, making both parcels “physically, legally and commercially inseparable”.

Regulatory red flags

Under the agreement, Mr Emecheta reportedly undertook to complete the sand-filling and perfect all documentation within 17 months.

However, Mr Orabuchi said officials of the Lagos State Government later assessed the reclaimed land and recognised only 6,700 square metres as legally reclaimed.

He alleged that Mr Emecheta rejected the assessment and attempted to reclaim up to 10,000 square metres through federal channels.

During this period, Mr Orabuchi said agents acting for Mr Emecheta began marketing the waterfront land to third parties.

He alleged that portions of the property were assigned to Lord of Hosts Miracle Church and other businesses, despite his own title documents remaining unperfected.

Allegations of double dealing

Mr Orabuchi accused Mr Emecheta of deliberately stalling the title perfection process to avoid fulfilling contractual obligations.

He also alleged that several structures erected on the property lacked valid planning approvals.

According to him, this led the Lagos State Building Control Authority (LASBCA) to remove some structures during regulatory enforcement.

“These developments contradicted the representations made to me and raised serious concerns about the legality of the land,” Mr Orabuchi said.

Police involvement

Before going to court, Mr Orabuchi petitioned the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), accusing Mr Emecheta of obtaining money under false pretences, criminal breach of trust and cheating.

The IGP reportedly referred the matter to Zone 2 Police Command, Onikan, Lagos, for investigation.

Mr Orabuchi alleged that while the investigation was ongoing, Mr Emecheta petitioned the IGP Monitoring Unit in Abuja, contrary to police directives on duplication of cases.

Police authorities later instructed the Abuja unit to step aside, according to the claimant.

Why the court sealed the property

Mr Orabuchi told the court that he continued to face threats and harassment, prompting him to file a fundamental rights enforcement suit against officers attached to the Monitoring Unit in Abuja.

The court ruled that sealing the property was necessary to preserve the subject matter of the dispute and prevent a breach of public peace.

Enforcement agents subsequently sealed the property in line with the court order.

Public warning

Mr Orabuchi urged members of the public to disregard what he described as “misleading narratives” surrounding the dispute.

He also warned prospective investors to exercise caution in any dealings involving Mr Eme

The Federal High Court is expected to fix a date for the substantive hearing.

Investigations by the police are also ongoing.

Nigeria’s Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Fidelity Bank in its appeal against Sagecom Concepts Limited, closing a legal dispute that has lingered in the financial sector for more than 20 years.

The judgment was delivered on Friday by a five-member panel led by Justice Lawal Garba.

In the ruling, the apex court clarified how the judgment debt should be calculated and paid, granting Fidelity Bank key reliefs it had sought.

What the bank asked the court to decide

In a motion dated October 8, 2025, Fidelity Bank asked the Supreme Court to issue a consequential order directing that the judgment debt be paid in naira.

The bank also requested that interest be calculated at 19.5% per annum, instead of 19.5% compounded daily, which had been awarded by the High Court.

Fidelity Bank further asked the court to adopt the exchange rate applicable on the date of the High Court judgment, relying on the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Anibaba v. Dana Airlines.

The bank also urged the court to fix the judgment sum at ₦30.19bn, with interest payable annually until full settlement.

Supreme Court’s decision

In a ruling delivered by Justice Adamu Jauro, the Supreme Court granted the first three requests made by Fidelity Bank.

The court ruled that the judgment debt should be paid in naira and that interest should be calculated at 19.5% per annum, not on a daily compounded basis.

It also affirmed that the applicable exchange rate should be that in force on the date of the High Court judgment, consistent with its earlier ruling in Anibaba v. Dana Airlines.

However, the court declined to fix the judgment sum at a specific amount and refused to grant the request relating to post-judgment interest computation.

Why it matters

The ruling significantly reduces Fidelity Bank’s potential liability, which had previously been speculated in some quarters to be as high as ₦225bn.

Legal and financial analysts say the judgment brings long-awaited certainty to a case that has cast a shadow over the bank for years.

It also reinforces judicial clarity on how foreign currency judgments and interest calculations should be treated in Nigerian courts.

Background to the dispute

The case dates back to a 2002 credit facility granted to construction firm G. Cappa Plc.

It later became entangled in legal proceedings over the enforcement of collateral.

The dispute was inherited by Fidelity Bank following its 2005 merger with FSB International Bank, making it a legacy case spanning multiple banking eras.

Market and industry reaction

Despite years of litigation, Fidelity Bank’s share price remained largely stable throughout the legal process.

Market watchers say this reflected investor confidence in the bank’s governance framework, risk management practices, and financial resilience.

Industry experts believe the ruling reinforces confidence in the Nigerian banking sector’s ability to withstand prolonged legal uncertainty.

What’s next

With the Supreme Court’s decision, the case is considered legally settled.

Attention is now expected to shift to compliance with the clarified payment structure and its broader implications for similar legacy disputes across the financial sector.

The Federal High Court in Abuja has rejected reports alleging an assassination attempt on Justice James Omotosho, the judge who convicted and sentenced Nnamdi Kanu for terrorism offences.

The court said the viral claim, circulated by a blog, was entirely fabricated.

The issue has sparked public concern because it touches on judicial safety, the high-profile case of Nnamdi Kanu, and the vulnerability of judges handling sensitive national security matters.

Court denies report, calls it “fake news”

In a statement on Saturday, the Chief Registrar of the Federal High Court, Suleiman Hassan, said the judiciary was alarmed by the publication and moved quickly to set the record straight.

He described the report as “completely false and unfounded”, stressing that it was “fake news deliberately crafted to mislead the public and sow distrust in the judiciary.”

“The public is advised to treat this publication as fake news and refrain from further dissemination to prevent the spread of misinformation,” Mr Hassan said.

Background: Kanu sentenced to life imprisonment

Justice Omotosho had on 20 November found the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Nnamdi Kanu guilty of multiple terrorism-related offences.

He was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment, a ruling that drew significant reactions across Nigeria and among diaspora groups.

The viral report suggested an attack on the judge shortly after the verdict, prompting the judiciary to intervene publicly.

Industry reactions

Legal experts say false reports targeting judges could further endanger judicial officers and undermine public trust in court processes.

A constitutional lawyer in Abuja told NigeriaUpdates:

“Whenever misinformation is linked to high-profile cases like Kanu’s, it can escalate tensions and lead to security risks. It is important that the judiciary responds swiftly, as they have done.”

What’s next?

The court has urged Nigerians to verify information before sharing, especially on sensitive national issues.

Media analysts say the episode could prompt improved crisis communication by the judiciary and push for stronger penalties against fake news involving security institutions.