Documents relating to a Lagos High Court judgment detail the legal dispute over Plot 37, Block 77, Lekki Peninsula Scheme I, and the circumstances behind the Assistant Inspector-General of Police (AIG), Zone 2 Command, Onikan, Lagos, providing police protection to Skyview Properties Limited.
The documents include a Certified True Copy of a judgment delivered on June 30, 2025, and an application for police protection submitted by the company’s solicitors on October 21, 2026.
The judgment, delivered by Justice K.A. Jose of the Lagos High Court in Suit No. LD/1006CMW/2015, involved Skyview Properties Limited as the claimant and Mr Samuel Alao Ajibode and two others as defendants.
The documents indicate that the police protection request was linked to the company’s claim to the property and its intention to commence development following the court’s decision.
The development comes amid allegations of bias and land grabbing surrounding the police intervention.
How the Lekki Land Dispute Started
According to the application submitted by C.O. Toyin Pinheiro & Co., solicitors to Skyview Properties, the company approached the Lagos High Court in 2015 to establish its title to the disputed property.
The land is registered as No. 37 at Page 37 in Volume 2491 of the Lagos Lands Registry.
The company alleged that Ajibode, who had previously transferred his interest in the property through a Deed of Assignment, continued to lay claim to the land and allegedly trespassed on it.
Skyview subsequently sought a declaration that Ajibode was no longer entitled to present himself as the holder of Certificate of Occupancy No. 50 at Page 50 in Volume 1990, which also covered the disputed property.
The company also sought a perpetual injunction and N100 million in damages over alleged trespass and harassment.
Court Examined Allegation of Forged Deed of Assignment
In his defence and counterclaim, Ajibode reportedly maintained that he was the original allottee of the property in 1990.
He challenged the Deed of Assignment dated January 11, 2011, describing it as forged, invalid and incapable of transferring his interest in the land.
He consequently asked the court to declare the document null and void and reallocate the property to him.
However, the court examined forensic evidence presented by the Nigeria Police Force as part of the proceedings.
Two police forensic experts, DSP Samuel Ode of Force CID Alagbon and retired DSP Reginald Udenze, a forensic document examiner, reportedly testified during the trial.
The forensic report, admitted as Exhibit C1, indicated that documents labelled A to F were examined using scientific equipment, including a Video Spectral Comparator.
According to the report, the examination established that the signatures on the documents were made by the same person. It also reportedly found that Ajibode’s specimen signatures matched those appearing on the Deed of Assignment and payment receipts.
The findings were presented as evidence that Ajibode signed the transaction documents and received payment for the transfer.
Lagos High Court Rules in Favour of Skyview Properties
Relying on the evidence before it, Justice Jose reportedly held that Skyview Properties had established the transfer of interest in the property through a valid Deed of Assignment.
The court dismissed Ajibode’s allegation of forgery as unsubstantiated.
The judgment also addressed a revocation notice dated August 8, 2016, reportedly issued by the Lagos State Attorney-General and the Executive Secretary of the Lands Bureau.
Justice Jose declared the purported revocation unconstitutional, null and void, citing the failure to provide fair hearing and pay compensation.
The decision formed the basis of Skyview’s subsequent application for police protection, according to the documents.
Why Skyview Requested Police Protection
In an application dated October 21, 2026, and acknowledged by the office of the AIG, Zone 2 Command, Skyview’s solicitors requested police protection to enable the company to carry out development and construction activities on the property without a breach of peace.
The application reportedly offered logistics support in connection with the requested police assistance.
Sources at Zone 2 explained that the request was intended to prevent attacks or disturbances during the proposed development of the property.
They also maintained that providing security to a party claiming rights under a court judgment is different from executing the judgment itself.
According to the sources, the execution of court judgments remains the responsibility of the appropriate court enforcement officers, including sheriffs, while police protection is intended to maintain law and order and prevent violence.
Legal Experts Cite Police Act in Defence of Intervention
Legal experts who commented on the matter argued that Section 4 of the Police Act, 2020, empowers the Nigeria Police Force to protect lives and property, prevent crime and maintain public order.
They maintained that police protection could be justified where a party seeking to exercise rights recognised by a court faces a potential threat to safety or public peace.
The experts also argued that a party dissatisfied with the Lagos High Court judgment of June 30, 2025, should pursue the appropriate legal remedies, including an appeal, rather than resorting to self-help.
However, the precise scope of police involvement in the dispute remains an important consideration, particularly the distinction between preventing violence and carrying out the enforcement of a court judgment.
Documents Raise Questions Over Allegations Against Zone 2 Command
The documents also provide context for allegations of bias against the AIG, Zone 2 Command.
According to the account presented in the documents, the police had earlier investigated the allegation that the Deed of Assignment was forged, with forensic findings subsequently tendered during the court proceedings.
Sources familiar with the matter argued that the police protection request should therefore be considered alongside the earlier investigation and the court’s findings.
They warned that preventing law enforcement agencies from providing legitimate security assistance to parties involved in land disputes could encourage self-help and undermine public confidence in the judicial process.
The dispute centres on the ownership and possession of the Lekki property, the validity of the 2011 Deed of Assignment, and the extent of police involvement following the court’s decision.
While the judgment reportedly resolved key questions concerning the transfer of interest and the disputed revocation notice, any further challenge to the decision would need to be addressed through the appropriate judicial process.
