Kashamu, Others Forfeit Lagos Lands To EFCC

Justice Mojisola Dada of an Ikeja Special Offences Court yesterday dismissed an application filed by a property firm, Kasmal Property Limited, and four others, against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over a piece of land measuring 50.080 hectares situated at Ogombo village in Eti-Osa Local Government Area of Lagos State.

Justice Dada held that the lands, being sold and marketed by Kasmal Properties Limited and Kasmal International Service Limited – companies promoted by the late Prince Buruji Kashamu and his acolyte of real estate companies – include Pennek Estate, Reservile Estate By Coutleigh Investment Limited, Angle Blue Estate By Atco Homes, and Pipi Island Estate By Big C Real Estate Property Limited.

Others are: Signature By Pwan Homes, Dream City By Revolution Plus, Lekki Pride 2 By Zylus Homes and others on Ogombo Road in Ajah from Abraham Adesanya.

They have been forfeited in the interim to the EFCC, pending investigation and arraignment of the accused persons.

The court warned trespassers to keep off the land, pending the conclusion of trial in court.

Aside Kasmal Properties Limited, others affected by the order of the court are: Kasmal International Service Limited, Courtleigh Investment Limited, Pennek Nigeria Limited and Taiwo Shote as first to fifth respondents/applicants whose application was dismissed.

The EFCC had, in a suit, obtained a temporary ex parte order against the five respondents (companies and Shote) over the land at Ogombo Village which the commission alleged was under investigation.

The anti-graft agency alleged that the landed property was subject matter in the suit pending in Abuja and Lagos in a suit between Adeniran Adedokun Ventures Nigeria Limited & others against Pentagon Real Estate Investment Limited and others, wherein the respondents/applicants and Adedokun Ventures, whose petition the EFCC acted upon, are adverse parties.

They submitted that there was misrepresentation of material facts by the EFCC, non-disclosure of the pendency of the two suits as well as no urgency warranting the grant of ex parte interim forfeiture order in May 22 on account of petition received by EFCC in January 2019.

In her ruling, Justice Dada said the order of the Federal High Court was not binding on the court, as rightly argued by the applicant/respondent.

She also held that the order does not restrict the applicant/respondent from taking the step it took in obtaining the interim forfeiture order being complained against.