The Lagos State Ministry of Physical Planning and Urban Development took decisive action against an ongoing construction project at Plot 18, Block J, Seagate Estate, Lekki Phase 1, Eti-Osa, Lagos, sealing the premises due to serious allegations of forgery, encroachment, and blatant disregard for regulatory directives. This enforcement action, executed by the Lagos State Physical Planning Permit Authority (LASPPPA), followed a previously issued stop-work order and a subsequent notice to seal the property. The developer, Frank Ezeala, a lawyer, is at the center of the controversy surrounding the legitimacy of the title documents he presented for the project.
The core of the dispute revolves around the developer’s alleged commencement of construction without obtaining the necessary approvals or providing verifiable documentation from the relevant authorities. LASPPPA officials assert that Mr. Ezeala failed to respond to multiple invitations and directives from the ministry seeking clarification and compliance with building regulations. This lack of cooperation further fueled suspicions about the project’s legitimacy and prompted further investigation into the matter. The ministry’s intervention underscores the importance of adhering to established procedures and obtaining proper authorization before undertaking any development project.
The land ownership dispute surrounding Plot 18 is complex, involving multiple claimants and a history spanning nearly three decades. Dr. John Umude, who claims legal ownership of both Plots 16 and 18 within the estate, alleges that Mr. Ezeala forged documents and initiated construction despite being aware of the ongoing legal proceedings related to the land. Dr. Umude asserts that he acquired the plots in 1994, making him the first assignee of record. He has presented supporting documentation, including a deed of sublease and a survey plan, to substantiate his claim. According to Dr. Umude, while Plot 16 was subsequently sold in 2013, Plot 18 remained under his ownership, secured with fencing, a gate, and a padlock, all of which were allegedly breached by the developer to commence construction.
In response to the allegations and the presented evidence, the ministry launched an internal review of the case. As part of this review, the original vendors and estate developers, Harris Properties, were contacted to verify the authenticity of the documents submitted by Mr. Ezeala. During the review, it was reportedly confirmed that the documents provided by the developer were not issued by Harris Properties, raising significant concerns about their validity and potentially implicating Mr. Ezeala in fraudulent activities. This discovery further solidified the ministry’s decision to seal the property.
A senior planning official, speaking on condition of anonymity, emphasized the necessity of the sealing action to uphold the integrity of the built environment and protect potential buyers from being misled into purchasing units in a potentially illegal structure. The official stressed that developing disputed land without proper authorization undermines regulatory control and poses significant risks to both investors and the overall urban development plan. The ministry confirmed that the developer had been issued a stop-work order followed by a notice to seal the property. Both directives were ignored, leading to the enforcement action taken by the ministry. At the time of sealing, a substantial portion of the building had already been completed, and marketing efforts for the sale of units were reportedly underway, further highlighting the urgency of the ministry’s intervention.
While Mr. Ezeala’s legal counsel confirmed the sealing of the premises, they disputed Dr. Umude’s account of events, claiming that Dr. Umude’s legal challenge to the development had been dismissed on technical grounds. This conflicting narrative adds another layer of complexity to the case, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive legal resolution. The ministry, however, clarified that the sealing of the property does not constitute a determination of ownership but is a regulatory measure to halt unauthorized development pending the outcome of the legal proceedings. This clarification reinforces the ministry’s role in enforcing building regulations and ensuring compliance with legal procedures, regardless of the outcome of the ownership dispute. The ministry also took the opportunity to caution potential property buyers to exercise due diligence and verify all planning and title documents with the appropriate state agencies before making any purchase, highlighting the importance of protecting themselves from potential fraud and ensuring the legality of their investments.
