Court Grills Developer’s Title as Firm Seeks Joinder in High-Stakes Ikoyi Land Dispute

Wale Igbintade

A Lagos State High Court sitting in Osborne, Ikoyi, yesterday entertained fresh arguments in a protracted land ownership dispute between Net Construct Nigeria Limited and Amytorix Company Nigeria Limited, as Casafina Capital Limited applied to be joined as a party.

Presiding over the matter, Justice Kayode Ogunjobi scrutinised the basis of the applicant’s title while hearing submissions for and against the joinder application.

Casafina Capital Limited, in its application, told the court that it acquired a portion of the disputed land measuring about 13,000 square metres from Alma Beach Estate Limited (in receivership) under a development agreement dated July 10, 2020.

The firm stated the land formed part of a larger expanse covered by a Certificate of Occupancy in Eti-Osa Local Government Area of Lagos State.

Through an affidavit deposed to by its litigation clerk, the applicant argued that it had a direct and substantial interest in the property and that the outcome of the suit would affect its proprietary rights.

It urged the court to grant its joinder application in the interest of justice, warning that failure to do so could lead to irreparable loss and a multiplicity of suits.

Equally, counsel to the applicant told the court that his client had been in undisturbed possession of the land since 2020 and had developed 22 housing units on it.

“We purchased the property under receivership and have remained in possession since then. We have built about 22 units on the land. Suddenly, our interest is being threatened without being heard,” counsel said.

The counsel added that the portion acquired by the client was clearly defined and covered by a deed of assignment, stressing that the matter cannot be fairly determined without the applicant’s participation.

“If the existing parties decide to settle, that decision will directly affect us, despite our substantial investment,” he argued.

However, Ogunjobi raised concerns about the root of the applicant’s title, stating that it is derived from the second defendant.

“You derived your title from the second defendant. Can you take more than what the second defendant has given to you?” the judge queried.

The judge further observed that the applicant’s interest could not supersede that of its vendor and that the court could not, at this stage, determine the validity of its title.

In opposing the application, counsel to the claimant described the joinder request as incompetent, arguing that it was not supported by essential documents establishing the root of title.

“We have no claim against the applicant. It is the claimant’s case that determines the parties before the court.

If there is no claim against them, they are not a necessary party,” he submitted.

Counsel to the second defendant also opposed the application, informing the court that a counter-affidavit had been filed alleging that the applicant defaulted on agreed payments, leading to the termination of the contract.

“If the applicant believes it has a valid claim, it should institute a separate action,” he said, adding that granting the application would introduce issues unrelated to the claimant’s case.

Tension rose during the proceedings when the applicant’s counsel alleged that about eight housing units on the property were demolished over the weekend.

He urged the court to preserve the subject matter of the suit, warning that failure to do so could render the application nugatory.

In response, Ogunjobi acknowledged the need to preserve the res but stated that the issue of title remained unresolved, particularly in light of allegations of default by the party from whom the applicant derived its interest.

The matter was adjourned to June 4 for further hearing.