ABUJA, Nigeria — A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory has ordered the unsealing of a disputed Lekki waterfront property and faulted the use of police processes in a civil land disagreement involving Elvis Eze Emecheta and Henry Ugonna Orabuchi.
The ruling, delivered by Justice O. A. Musa on Thursday, April 23, 2026, in Suit No. CV/4636/2025, arose from a dispute over 3,000 square metres of reclaimed land in the Lekki Peninsula Scheme in Lagos. The property was valued in court filings at about ₦2.4 billion.
The court declared that police action connected to the dispute was unlawful, set aside a police invitation issued to Orabuchi, restrained further police interference and ordered specific performance of the land contract. It also refused damages of more than ₦1 billion sought by the applicant.
Court Rejects Preliminary Objection
Orabuchi brought the case against the Nigeria Police Force, the Inspector-General of Police, ACP Magaji K. Mohammed, SP Abigail Patrick, Emecheta, the Lagos State Commissioner for Physical Planning and Urban Development, and the Federal Ministry of Housing and Urban Development.
Emecheta, listed as the fifth respondent, had challenged the competence of the suit, arguing that it was not properly brought under fundamental rights procedure.
Justice Musa rejected the objection, holding that the case was rooted in alleged constitutional rights violations.
The judge described the objection as lacking merit and said it “fizzles into insignificance,” before dismissing it.
The court also noted that several respondents, including the police authorities and government agencies, did not file counter-affidavits despite being served.
Their failure to respond meant the applicant’s evidence was unchallenged, the court held, subject to its credibility.
Police Role in Civil Dispute Faulted
At the centre of the judgment was the court’s finding that police powers had been deployed in a matter arising from a private land contract.
Justice Musa held that the dispute had already drawn police attention in Lagos before a separate petition was pursued in Abuja.
The court said the circumstances suggested abuse of process and forum shopping, describing the situation as a “troubling and disquieting scenario.”
The court reaffirmed that the police cannot be used as debt recovery agents or as a mechanism for enforcing commercial agreements.
It held that the use of police machinery in the matter violated Orabuchi’s rights to personal liberty, freedom of movement and property.
The court declared the police invitation dated November 11, 2025, unconstitutional, null and void, and restrained law enforcement authorities from further arresting, harassing or detaining Orabuchi in relation to the dispute.
Specific Performance Ordered
Although the court found that police involvement had breached the applicant’s rights, it also addressed the underlying land transaction.
Justice Musa held that the agreement between the parties created both contractual rights and an equitable interest in the land, protected under Section 44 of the Constitution.
The court said the existence of the contract was not disputed and that payment had been made.
The judge ordered Emecheta to perform his obligations under the agreement and restrained the Federal Ministry of Housing and Urban Development from processing or issuing any Certificate of Occupancy over the disputed land until the order was complied with.
The court, however, declined to award damages or order a public apology, holding that the claims were premature.
It also struck out a request seeking continuing supervision of the property by Lagos State authorities.
Dispute Began With 2023 Land Agreement
The case traces back to a 2023 agreement under which Orabuchi contracted to acquire about 3,000 square metres of reclaimed waterfront land behind Plot A, Block 12, Lekki Peninsula Scheme.
Earlier reports on the dispute said the land was to be carved out after reclamation work and title processing.
Orabuchi maintained that he had fulfilled his payment obligations and was entitled to possession and title.
Emecheta argued that the land formed part of a wider reclamation project and that transfer could occur only after the completion of title regularisation with relevant authorities.
Emecheta said the agreement required him to procure title after reclamation.
“The contract of sales agreement states clearly that 3000sqm sold to Mr Orabuchi will come with legal title that must be procured by me after reclamation,” Emecheta said.
He also alleged that Orabuchi entered the reclaimed land before title processing was complete and barricaded portions of the property.
“In doing so, he chased away legal tenants conducting their businesses on the old property of mine adjoining the reclaimed land which has nothing to do with the reclaimed land,” Emecheta said.
“It was this criminal and self help conduct that necessitated reporting to police for which he was promptly invited for questioning.”
Earlier Sealing Order Reversed
The disputed property had earlier been sealed following an interim order issued by the FCT High Court.
Reports at the time said the order was granted after Orabuchi approached the court seeking protection of his rights and preservation of the property pending resolution of the dispute.
Emecheta said the sealing affected not only the disputed reclaimed land but also adjoining premises occupied by other businesses.
The latest ruling orders the property to be unsealed while also compelling performance of the land agreement and barring further police intervention in the civil dispute.
