Abacha Family Joint Venture Dispute: Fundamental breaches supported by evidence – 18 Units partitioned into 44

The available contractual documents and recent court proceedings in the dispute over No. 68 Molade Okoya Thomas Street, Victoria Island, Lagos, appear to lend significant weight to the position of the original property owner, Dr (Mrs) Maryam Sani Abacha, that the property was entrusted to Levitikal Realties & Construction Limited strictly for the development of 18 units of three-bedroom apartments and was never transferred to Levitikal as its unrestricted commercial asset.

Under the agreement, nine completed apartments were to accrue to Levitikal as consideration for undertaking the development, while the remaining nine were to be retained by the landowner. Upon completion of the project, Mrs Abacha would execute and sign Deeds of Assignment in favour of Levitikal or its nominees for the nine units due to the developer under the agreement. Since there is a dispute over the development, any purchaser may have to wait until the dispute is resolved before obtaining a Deed of Assignment.

The worrisome issue, therefore, is the developer’s attempt to convert a contractual development agreement into an arrangement that seeks to extend its rights to ownership or unrestricted control of the underlying land.

The controversy was heightened by the unilateral partitioning of the development into more than 44 units comprising one-bedroom, two-bedroom and three-bedroom apartments, rather than the original 18 agreed units. This raised fundamental questions about the contractual authority for the additional development, the ownership of the additional interests and the authority under which they may have been marketed or otherwise dealt with.

To prevent the Abacha family from discovering the development’s status, Levitikal allegedly used all means possible to prevent them from gaining access to the property despite several requests and demands.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is already involved in the matter, as investigations are ongoing into the sale of the partitioned units to unsuspecting third parties. Previous publications circulated across several platforms reported that the EFCC had marked the property as part of its ongoing investigation.

Another dispute concerning the development relates to Levitikal’s attempt to register a Power of Attorney granted to it for the development and use the registration as a tool to take over the property. The dispute is currently before the High Court of Lagos State. The suit was instituted by Providus Bank Limited and Levitikal. The Abacha family, which was not initially joined as a party, subsequently became aware of the suit and was joined by an order of the High Court of Lagos State.

On September 29, 2026, Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa of the Federal High Court in Lagos ordered the appointment of a receiver/manager to take possession, custody and control of the property. The court also restrained Levitikal, its directors, agents and representatives from selling, transferring, assigning, mortgaging, leasing, charging or otherwise encumbering the property. The order was made pending the resolution of the arbitration proceedings.

Although the order is interim and does not finally determine the substantive claims, it represents an important step towards preserving the disputed property pending the determination of the arbitration.

At the heart of the controversy is a relatively straightforward contractual question: Did the original agreement give Levitikal ownership of the land or merely the right to develop it under agreed terms?

If the original bargain was for an 18-unit development, with nine units constituting the developer’s consideration, any subsequent expansion of the project and creation of additional proprietary interests would require clear contractual justification.

For now, however, the available evidence appears to lend considerable weight to Mrs Abacha’s contention that she remained the owner of the underlying land and that Levitikal’s mandate was a defined development arrangement, not an unrestricted transfer of proprietary control.

The case consequently raises an important broader question for Nigeria’s real estate sector concerning the rights granted to developers under joint venture agreements. If any of the units has been sold, the purchaser should follow the proceedings closely, as the outcome could affect their interests in the property.

Abacha Family Joint Venture Dispute: Fundamental breaches supported by evidence – 18 Units partitioned into 44