Court halts Lagos takeover of widow’s estate

A Lagos State High Court has issued an interim injunction restraining the Lagos State Government and other parties from dispossessing an 80-year-old widow of her extensive estate in Lekki. The order, granted by Justice E.O. Ashade in the suit filed by Chief H.A.K. Shonowo, preserves the *status quo* pending the hearing of a motion on notice. This judicial intervention underscores the judiciary's critical role in safeguarding fundamental property rights, particularly for vulnerable citizens, against potential arbitrary actions by state authorities. The case highlights complex issues surrounding land acquisition, revocation of rights of occupancy, and the administration of estates under Nigerian law.

In a significant development for property rights in Lagos State, a Lagos State High Court sitting in Yaba has granted an interim injunction preventing the Lagos State Government and four other defendants from taking possession of or interfering with a substantial property belonging to an 80-year-old widow, Chief H.A.K. Shonowo. The disputed estate, located in Lekki Peninsula Scheme I, comprises multiple residential units and a commercial shop, making the court's order a crucial safeguard for the claimant and the estate of her late husband, Chief Owodiran Olusoga Shonowo.

Justice E.O. Ashade's ruling, delivered pending the hearing of a motion on notice, reinforces the principle of preserving the *status quo ante bellum* when a court is seized of a matter. This case brings to the fore the intricate interplay between the state's power of land acquisition, constitutional guarantees of property rights, and the protection afforded to citizens, particularly widows, in the administration of estates. The court's decision serves as a timely reminder of the judiciary's role in upholding the rule of law and preventing executive overreach in matters of private property.

This article will delve into the legal framework underpinning land ownership and compulsory acquisition in Nigeria, analyze the court's rationale for granting the interlocutory injunction, and discuss the broader implications for legal practitioners and property owners in Lagos State.

The legal landscape governing land ownership and acquisition in Nigeria is primarily shaped by the Land Use Act, Cap L5 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004. This Act vests all land comprised in the territory of each state in the Governor of that state, who holds such land in trust for the people. While the Act empowers the Governor to grant rights of occupancy and, under certain conditions, revoke them for 'overriding public interest,' it also mandates the payment of compensation for improvements on the land.

Complementing the Land Use Act are Sections 43 and 44 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), which enshrine the fundamental right of every Nigerian citizen to acquire and own immovable property anywhere in Nigeria. Section 44 specifically provides that no movable property or interest in immovable property shall be compulsorily acquired except in a manner prescribed by a law that, among other things, requires prompt payment of compensation and grants access to a court of law for the determination of interest and compensation. These constitutional provisions act as a crucial check on the government's power of compulsory acquisition, ensuring due process and fair treatment for landowners.

Furthermore, as the claimant in this case is suing on behalf of herself and the estate of her late husband, the Administration of Estates Law of Lagos State, Cap A3 LLS 2015, is pertinent. This law governs the management and distribution of deceased persons' estates, outlining the rights and duties of personal representatives, such as executors or administrators, in dealing with the deceased's assets, including real property. The law provides a framework for ensuring that the assets of a deceased person are properly managed and distributed to the rightful beneficiaries.

The Lagos State High Court's decision to grant an interim injunction in Chief H.A.K. Shonowo's case against the Lagos State Government and others is a testament to the judiciary's commitment to protecting property rights. The claimant's counsel, Babatunde Oni (SAN), successfully argued for the preservation of the property, citing the hardship suffered by the 80-year-old widow due to the defendants' actions. Justice Ashade found that the claimant had established sufficient grounds for the interim relief, emphasizing the trite legal principle that parties to a pending case must not take actions capable of affecting the court's jurisdiction.

Central to the court's decision are the established principles for granting interlocutory injunctions in Nigerian law. An applicant must demonstrate that there is a serious question to be tried, that the balance of convenience favors granting the injunction, and that damages would not be an adequate remedy. Crucially, the primary object of an interlocutory injunction is to maintain the *status quo ante bellum* until the substantive issues can be finally determined. In this instance, the alleged actions of the Lagos State Government – revoking the right of occupancy in 2020, reallocating a portion in 2021, and then allegedly attempting to take over the entire reallocated land in 2026 – presented a clear threat to the claimant's established interest and warranted judicial intervention to prevent further irreversible changes.

The claimant's assertion that her contractual dealings were solely with the fourth and fifth defendants, and not with the Lagos State Government, Attorney-General, or Governor, further complicates the state's alleged attempt to re-take the land. This raises questions about the basis and legality of the government's actions, particularly in light of the constitutional requirement for compulsory acquisition to be for a public purpose and with prompt compensation. If the government's actions are not demonstrably for an overriding public interest or fail to adhere to the compensation requirements, they could be deemed unconstitutional and unlawful.

Moreover, the fact that Chief Shonowo is suing on behalf of her late husband's estate underscores the importance of proper estate administration. Under the Administration of Estates Law, the personal representative has the authority to manage and protect the deceased's assets. The court's injunction, therefore, not only protects the widow's personal interest but also safeguards the integrity of the deceased's estate, ensuring that its assets are not unlawfully dissipated or seized pending the resolution of the dispute. The case highlights the potential for conflicts between state land policies and individual property rights, particularly when dealing with inherited properties.

The interim injunction granted by the Lagos State High Court in Chief H.A.K. Shonowo's case is a vital victory for property rights and the rule of law in Nigeria. It sends a strong message that governmental bodies cannot arbitrarily dispossess citizens of their lawfully acquired properties without due process and adherence to constitutional and statutory provisions. The decision to preserve the *status quo* until the substantive issues are heard provides crucial protection for the vulnerable widow and her late husband's estate, preventing irreversible harm.

For legal practitioners, this case serves as an important reminder of the robust protections afforded to property owners under the Nigerian Constitution and the Land Use Act. It emphasizes the effectiveness of interlocutory injunctions as a tool to prevent executive overreach and maintain the integrity of the judicial process. Practitioners should remain vigilant in challenging any governmental actions that infringe upon fundamental property rights, ensuring that the principles of public purpose, prompt compensation, and access to justice are strictly adhered to. The substantive hearing on July 9, 2026, will be closely watched for further pronouncements on the legality of the Lagos State Government's actions and the ultimate determination of the widow's rights to her estate.