Homes & Property

December 30, 2014

Court restrains LSBC, others from further demolition of Lagos property

A Lagos High Court sitting in Igbosere has restrained the Lagos State government from further demolition and dismantling of a property located at plot 49, Martins, street, Lagos by the agents of the Lagos State Building Control Agency, LSBCA.

In an interlocutory injunction granted by Justice Hakeem O. Oshodi, the court restrained the Attorney General of Lagos State alongside the State Urban and Renewal Agency from further tampering with the five -storey building destroyed by the agents of the government.

Defendants in the suit are the Attorney General of Lagos State, Lagos State Urban Renewal Agency, LASURA and the Lagos State Building Control Agency LASBCA.

In the motion on notice filed by the Claimants/ Applicants,  they sought for an order of the court to restrain the defendants “either by themselves, agents, privies or whosoever from erecting any structure, or alienating to the third party (LASBCA) or further interfering in any manner on any part of the property situate at No. 49, Martins Street/30, Shitta Street, Lagos pending the determination of the substantive suit in this case.”

Granting the prayers in the suit documented as LD/ 7688/2014, Justice Osodi ordered the respondents to maintain the status quo. He adjourned the matter till January 15, 2015 for the hearing of the motion on Notice.

“Due to the peculiar nature of the facts of this case, it will be prudent for the Court to maintain status quo of the Respondents. In this respect, the Court hereby orders that parties,  especially the 2nd and 3rd. Defendants, to maintain status quo as at today,” the Judge ruled.

The Claimant, Alhaji Fasasi Adesigbin Oluwole, Afeez Oladimeji Shitta, Alhaja Mutiat Olasumbo Hassan,(on behalf of the family of late Alhaja Taibat Shitta) and Alhaja Hadikat Talabi had in the suit laid claim to the disputed property at No 49 Martins street, Lagos.

In their affidavit, they alleged that in spite of the court orders restraining the defendants. from  further tampering with the disputed property, they “at a break neck speed fully demolished the property in dispute in my presence.”