The High Court of Lagos State, sitting in Igbosere, has issued significant pre-emptive orders restraining Industrial and General Insurance Plc and The Four H Nigeria Limited from transferring or interfering with a large expanse of land in the Lekki Peninsula.

The orders were granted after a property development company, Bravematt Property and Investment Limited, alleged that it had already paid N21.5 billion for the property.

Trial judge, Justice R. Olukolu, granted the far-reaching orders yesterday following an ex-parte application filed by the claimant. Bravematt accused the defendants of attempting to renege on a concluded sale agreement and proceeding to dispose of the 13.067-hectare property to unauthorized third parties.

Bravematt informed the court that it had entered into a purchase arrangement with IGI and Four H Nigeria Limited for Plots 5, 6, 7 and 8, which are situated within the Malyegun Tourism Zone, Lekki Peninsula Scheme II, Ibeju-Lekki.

The contested parcels of land are covered by a 1988 Certificate of Occupancy. The dispute arose after the claimant alleged that the sellers were taking active steps to invalidate the agreement despite having received substantial payments from Bravematt.

According to an 11-paragraph affidavit filed by the claimant’s legal team, the defendants had previously appointed Bradfield Limited to act as their agent for the purpose of seeking buyers for the property.

Bravematt subsequently submitted a formal offer to purchase the land, which the defendants allegedly accepted. In line with the stipulated terms of the agreement, Bravematt stated that it made several payments over time, which totaled N21.5 billion, including the final tranche amounting to N7.475 billion.

In an unexpected development, the defendants reportedly denied receiving the final payment, leading Bravematt to fear that they intended to back out of the binding deal and sell the valuable land to other interested parties.

The claimant’s counsel argued that without the urgent intervention of the court, the defendants’ actions could “extinguish the res” (the subject matter of the dispute) and thereby frustrate any meaningful attempts by the claimant to comply with the mandatory pre-action protocol before filing a substantive suit.

Justice Olukolu thoroughly reviewed the 15 grounds presented in support of the motion and meticulously examined 17 documentary exhibits tendered by the claimant as evidence.

The court observed during its review that the facts presented revealed a significant risk of irreparable harm to the claimant if the defendants were allowed to proceed with any transfer of the property or to deplete any funds linked to the disputed transaction.

The judge noted that the specific circumstances of the case justified the invocation of the court’s pre-emptive powers. Justice Olukolu relied on Sections 8 and 13 of the High Court Law of Lagos State 2018, Order 42 Rule 1(1) of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2019, and the Remedies Provisions of Practice Direction No. 2 of 2019 to ground the decision.

Consequently, Justice Olukolu granted two major restraining orders against the defendants. The first order stated: “The defendants are barred from selling, assigning, transferring, or entering into any transaction affecting the property pending Bravematt’s compliance with the pre-action protocol requirements.”

The second key order specifically addressed the funds involved: “The defendants, particularly IGI, are restrained from withdrawing or dissipating funds in Keystone Bank Account No. 1012692681 below N7.475 billion, which the claimant asserts is the final payment made under the transaction.”

The court concluded that the preservation of both the disputed land and the associated funds was necessary to prevent injustice from occurring and to maintain the status quo until the claimant is able to institute a full claim.

The orders are set to remain in force for a period of 14 days, during which time Bravematt is required to complete all necessary pre-action protocol steps before formally initiating its substantive lawsuit.

The court also mandated that the enrolment of the order must be served on the defendants and the concerned Keystone Bank without any delay.