N21.5bn Lekki Property Dispute Deepens as Bravematt Alleges Attempted Takeover

By Oriontimes Newsroom August 20, 2026

LAGOS — A dispute over a 13.067-hectare property valued at about N21.5 billion in the Maiyegun Tourism Zone, Lekki, Lagos, has intensified, with Bravematt Property and Investment Limited alleging attempts by third parties to interfere with its ownership and possession of the property.

Bravematt, in its account of the dispute and court processes relating to the property, identified the Surveyor-General of the Federation, a businessman identified as Ramesh Kasangra, and a Nigerian Army officer among individuals and authorities whose actions it claims are connected to the unfolding controversy.

The allegations have not been established by a final judgment, and the parties named in the company's account have not, in the material provided, been given an opportunity to publicly respond to all the allegations.

The property comprises Plots 5, 6, 7 and 8, Maiyegun Tourism Zone, Lekki Peninsula Scheme II, Ibeju, Eti-Osa Local Government Area, and is situated along the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway.

According to Bravematt, the property is covered by a Lagos State Certificate of Occupancy dated July 15, 1988, and was acquired from Industrial and General Insurance Plc (IGI) and its sister company, 4H Nigeria Limited.

The company said negotiations for the acquisition were conducted through Bradfield Limited, which had been appointed by the vendors to procure a buyer.

Bravematt said the property was initially offered for N22 billion, before it submitted a counter-offer of N21.5 billion in a letter dated June 5, 2025.

According to the company, 4H accepted the offer on June 13, 2025, while IGI subsequently approved the transaction through a board resolution.

An Agreement for Sale was thereafter executed.

Bravematt said it made payments of N10 billion, N2 billion and N7.475 billion, bringing the total amount it claims to have paid to N21.475 billion.

The company, however, said the vendors subsequently disputed receipt of the final instalment and sought to withdraw from the transaction.

Court Intervention

The disagreement eventually moved before the Lagos State High Court, where Bravematt sought urgent protection of its interest in the property.

On December 10, 2025, Justice R. O. Olukolu of the Lagos State High Court, sitting in the Commercial/Fast-Track Division, granted an interim order restraining IGI and 4H, as well as their agents, privies, licensees and prospective purchasers, from entering into transactions or commitments capable of assigning or transferring their interests in the property.

The court also restrained the respondents from dealing with the property in a manner capable of altering its state pending compliance with the applicable pre-action protocol.

In a related order, the court restricted withdrawals from a 4H account with Keystone Bank in a manner that would reduce the balance below N7.475 billion.

According to Bravematt, the court found that the circumstances presented, together with the documentary exhibits placed before it, disclosed a prima facie serious mischief warranting judicial intervention.

The order was made pending compliance with the applicable pre-action protocol within 14 days.

EFCC Investigation and Competing Transaction

Bravematt said the dispute later attracted the attention of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) following a disagreement over whether the purchase price had been received.

According to the company, EFCC investigators obtained relevant Keystone Bank records which it says showed that the disputed payment was received into the designated account on November 28, 2025, at about 9:02 a.m.

Bravematt further alleged that Kabiru Ayinde Tukur subsequently acknowledged receipt of the funds.

The company also alleged that the investigation uncovered another transaction involving part of the disputed property.

According to Bravematt, Tukur had entered into a separate transaction involving a portion of the land with Chief Ekomieyefa Uduboh, from whom the company alleges more than N6.6 billion had been collected as of December 2025.

Bravematt said the development raised questions over the existence of competing transactions involving the same property.

The company further alleged that Tukur subsequently offered to refund the money allegedly collected from Uduboh and restore the property to Bravematt.

Bravematt said a Deed of Assignment was subsequently executed in its favour, with Tukur acknowledging receipt of the purchase price in full.

The company said the execution of the documents was captured on video and that relevant title and transaction documents were handed over to it, with the exception of the original Certificate of Occupancy.

Possession and Fresh Dispute

According to Bravematt, the transfer process was substantially completed in February 2026, after which it was formally put into possession of the property.

The company said it subsequently erected a signboard, commenced a fresh survey and began perimeter fencing.

Bravematt said it remained in possession for several months before another confrontation emerged.

The company alleged that on or about July 12, 2026, it received information that the Managing Director and Company Secretary of IGI Plc had sold 4H Limited to an unidentified entity and transferred the original Certificate of Occupancy relating to the property to that entity.

Bravematt's General Counsel, E. O. Jakpa, was said to have contacted Tukur and Akinyele for clarification, but the company said it received no response.

It subsequently published a caveat in Vanguard newspaper on July 15, 2026, notifying members of the public of its claimed interest in the property.

Security Presence Triggers Fresh Allegations

The dispute escalated further on August 15, 2026, when Bravematt alleged that individuals claiming to represent 44 Hospitality Limited entered the property accompanied by security personnel and other persons.

According to the company, 44 Hospitality Limited is owned or controlled by businessman Ramesh Kasangra.

Bravematt alleged that the group claimed its presence was connected with protecting the Federal Government's right of way and enforcing an alleged 150-metre setback along the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway.

The company, however, alleged that security personnel accompanying the group participated in the removal of items belonging to Bravematt, including its signboard.

It further alleged that its workers were ordered to leave the property and that threats were issued against individuals attempting to access or remain on the premises.

These allegations remain claims by Bravematt and have not been independently established by Oriontimes.

Army Denies Property Deployment Claim

Bravematt said it subsequently contacted the Commanding Officer of the 65 Battalion of the Nigerian Army, Lt. Col. Adeojo, alleging that soldiers under his command were providing security cover for persons interfering with its possession.

According to Bravematt, the Commanding Officer denied that his soldiers were stationed on the company's property and maintained that they were positioned along the adjoining road.

The company said it invited the officer to visit the location to verify the position and conduct of the soldiers but alleged that he did not attend.

Bravematt further maintained that soldiers could still be seen within the area it identified as its property.

Surveyor-General's Position

The company also raised questions concerning the position it said was communicated by the Surveyor-General of the Federation.

Bravematt said it contacted the Surveyor-General to establish the basis upon which persons allegedly acting under his authority were interfering with the property.

According to the company, the Surveyor-General maintained that the land fell within a Federal Government setback.

Bravematt said it subsequently drew attention to the approximately 130,000 square metres comprising the property outside the roadway, but alleged that the Surveyor-General maintained that the entire area constituted Federal Government land.

The company further alleged that the Surveyor-General stated that, because competing claims or interests existed over the property, it was within his responsibility to conduct a survey and determine the extent of the competing interests.

Bravematt has challenged that position, arguing that the determination of competing ownership claims is ultimately a matter for a court of competent jurisdiction.

Land Ownership Question at the Centre

At the heart of the dispute is the competing interpretation of the property's legal status.

Bravematt maintains that the land is Lagos State land covered by a Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Lagos State Government.

The company has also argued that its interest is supported by the payment records, the December 2025 court order, the Deed of Assignment, other transaction documents and its subsequent possession of the property.

It has questioned how third parties could interfere with its possession while an earlier court order restrained IGI, 4H, their agents and prospective purchasers from undertaking transactions capable of transferring or assigning interests in the property.

The company has also invoked Sections 43 and 44 of the 1999 Constitution, arguing that they protect the right to acquire and own immovable property and provide safeguards concerning compulsory acquisition.

However, the competing claims over the land, the precise scope of any Federal Government right of way or highway setback, the status and effect of the Lagos State Certificate of Occupancy, and the authority under which security personnel were allegedly present remain matters requiring determination by the appropriate authorities or a competent court.

A Dispute With Wider Implications

The controversy has consequently moved beyond a conventional commercial disagreement between property interests.

It now raises broader questions about the intersection of land ownership, government right-of-way claims, highway development, title documentation, private investment and the limits of administrative intervention in disputed property matters.

For Bravematt, the central issue is whether its alleged acquisition, payment trail, court protection, Deed of Assignment and possession confer an enforceable interest in the property.

For those asserting a Federal Government setback or competing interest, the critical questions are the legal basis, extent and status of such claims.

Until the competing positions are conclusively determined, the allegations made by any party should be treated as claims rather than established facts.

Oriontimes will continue to monitor developments in the dispute and will provide the relevant parties and government authorities an opportunity to respond to the allegations as their positions become available.

Advertisement

Advertisement