Property Fraud And Corporate Bullying: Court Adjourns For Judgment In Suit Against Access Bank PLC
A heated legal battle unfolded at the High Court of Lagos State, Ajah, Lagos, on March 18, 2024, as A4 Realty Ltd and Access Bank PLC, along with five other Respondents, locked horns over an alleged infringement of fundamental rights stemming from a land sale transaction. The case, presided over by Hon. Justice G.A Safari, saw a flurry of arguments and counter-arguments from legal representatives on both sides.
The Applicant, A4 Realty Ltd, represented by a team of lawyers led by Prince .I Nwafuru, appearing with Miss Oluwatobi Akinboade, and M.I Abdulwasiu, came out swinging with their Amended Originating Application, dated November 16, 2023. They sought to persuade the Court to consider the attached exhibits, particularly the Deed of Assignment and email correspondence marked as Exhibits TLS 1 and TLS 3, which they claimed were crucial to their case.
During the proceedings, the 1st and 6th Respondents’ Counsel raised an objection regarding Exhibits TLS 1 and TLS 3, claiming they were not attached to the originating process served on them. P.I Nwafuru provided copies of the exhibits to the respective Respondents and argued that their objection was an attempt to disrupt the proceedings as all the Respondents were served with the documents. Interestingly, the EFCC’s lawyer acknowledged receipt of the same document.
The Applicant’s Counsel maintained that the suit concerned the infringement of fundamental rights arising from a land sale transaction and urged the Court to consider the reliefs sought. The 1st Respondent’s Counsel, represented by Mustapha Adenifuja, D.J Fashaye, and Muritala Olakunle, argued that the matter was a land dispute rather than a fundamental rights issue, stating that Access Bank Plc had erroneously sold the land in question to the Applicant.
The 4th and 6th Respondents’ Counsel also moved and adopted their respective Counter Affidavits, asserting that the matter pertained to land issues and not fundamental rights. They cited past cases and clauses from agreements to support their positions.
In response, Mr Prince I. Nwafuru adopted further affidavits and reply on points of law filed in response to the Respondents’ Counter Affidavits. He addressed specific issues raised by the Respondents, including the relevance of the appeal of the judgment and the lack of evidence regarding the overdraft or remittance of the same into the Applicant’s account.
On one of the points raised by the 6th Respondent’s Counsel who had argued that corporate bodies cannot sue for the enforcement of fundamental rights, Mr Nwafuru faulted the arguments and referred to judicial authorities where the Courts have held that corporate bodies can sue for the enforcement of fundamental rights to property guaranteed under chapter 4 of the Constitution. He urged the Court to reject the authority cited by the 6th Respondent’s Counsel as the facts and decisions are not applicable to this case.
The Court also deemed the Two Notices of Preliminary Objection filed by the 1st and 6th Respondents, as well as the Applicant’s Counter Affidavit in response, as adopted.
The matter was adjourned to May 15, 2024, for judgment. The Court’s decision is expected to provide clarity on the nature of the dispute and determine whether the Applicant’s fundamental rights were indeed infringed upon in the land sale transaction.
