Lagos tackles Banire over comments on planned demolition of his mother’s house

The Lagos State Government has issued a statement in reply to the pendency notice issued by the attorneys of Alhaja Sarat Banire over a contravention notice served for the demolition of her property located at No.24A, Remi Fani-Kayode Street, GRA, Ikeja, Lagos State.

The statement signed by the State’s Commissioner for Physical Planning and Urban Development, Tpl. Anifowose Wasiu Abiola, noted that not only is Mr. Muiz Banire (son of Alhaja Sarat Banire) trying to be clever by half, but is being childish in whipping up sentiments that his dear aged mother is the target of the said demand for development permit.

Clarifying the contravention notices sent out earlier, the Commissioner said the notices were served on properties identified by the state agents as operating without due permits.

Abiola said; “There is no way Lagos State would have had a pre-knowledge of the owners of the properties in question let alone targeted the one that Banire has identified to be his own”, Anifowose said. He added that aside the 13 houses affected on Fani-Kayode Street, there were a few others in Ikeja GRA and the rest in Ikoyi and Yaba.

“The 27 properties served across the state are just the first set of an ongoing exercise embarked upon by the Ministry of Physical Planning and Urban Development to validate the records and permits of properties that have undergone ownership transfer processes. This is a routine and lawful exercise that ought not to be confusing to a supposedly learned gentleman who has had the privilege of serving in the Lagos State Cabinet for a dozen years”.

The Commissioner stated that Banire’s claim that the transfer of ownership from the federal government to him is yet to be finalized makes him a mere tenant on the property he has acquired is an attempt that is subtly fraudulent.

Read also: OZUBULU MASSACRE: 4 suspects arraigned, 3 others still at large

“To suggest that because the transfer of ownership from the federal government to Mr. Banire is yet to be finalized makes him a mere tenant on the property he has acquired is not only disingenuous but is an attempt that is subtly fraudulent. While it is true that every government property sold to individuals or corporate entities is released to the owner on a 99-year lease, no new owner who has bought a property from government deceives the public that he is a mere tenant to the government on an acquired property. Or is Mr. Banire a tenant to the government on the other properties in Ikeja GRA he owns in the state?”

Keyamo Chambers, lead counsel to Alhaja Banire had earlier issued a letter of court processes in respect of the case with Suit No. FHC/L/CS1736/2017: tagged; Alhaja Sarat Banire v. Attorney General of the Federation and Minster for Justice & 3 Ors.

The suit challenged the expressed intention of the Lagos State Government to demolish the property while also drawing the attention of LASG to the pendency of the said action together with the Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction to restraining the planned demolition.

The suit read thus; “That parties should not embark upon self-help when a matter is before a Court of law. Since the successful act of self-help will certainly render subsequent successful decision nugatory, parties must refrain from it at all time. Therefore, once a party is aware of a pending Court process and whether a Court has given a specific injunctive order or not, parties are bound to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the Court process. They should on no account resort to self-help. Whenever such a situation arises, the court must invoke its disciplinary jurisdiction to curb the excesses of a recalcitrant party.”

This position was further reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of F.A.T.B. v. Ezegbu [1992] 9 NWLR (Pt. 264) 132 at page 147 paragraph B, when the apex Court held thus:
“As shown in Ojukwu’s case supra, the plaintiffs, having been put on notice of the defendant’s appeal and his motion to set aside the order of extra-ordinary general meeting ordered to be held by the Federal High Court, they are duty bound to hold on until the hearing and disposal of the motion. Instead, they went ahead and held the meeting, taking far reaching decisions affecting the defendants…”

The suit which has already been served to the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Lagos State, also called on LASG to stay action on the proposed demolition pending the hearing and determination of the Motion for Interlocutory Injunction in the above mentioned matter.

 

RipplesNigeria… without borders, without fears

Click here to join the Ripples Nigeria WhatsApp group for latest updates.

Join the conversation

Opinions

Support Ripples Nigeria, hold up solutions journalism

Balanced, fearless journalism driven by data comes at huge financial costs.

As a media platform, we hold leadership accountable and will not trade the right to press freedom and free speech for a piece of cake.

If you like what we do, and are ready to uphold solutions journalism, kindly donate to the Ripples Nigeria cause.

Your support would help to ensure that citizens and institutions continue to have free access to credible and reliable information for societal development.

Donate Now