Gail Fajembola, a Lagos socialite, has initiated legal proceedings against the Nigeria Police Force and several individuals, alleging harassment and intimidation stemming from a dispute over a luxury apartment in Banana Island, Ikoyi, Lagos. Fajembola’s lawsuit, filed at the Federal High Court in Lagos, seeks to establish that the police’s involvement in what she asserts is a purely civil matter constitutes an abuse of power and a violation of her fundamental human rights. The suit names the Inspector General of Police, other high-ranking police officials, businessman Tunde Ayeni, Olutoyl Estate Development & Services Ltd, and an individual named Ogbonna Nweke as respondents. Central to Fajembola’s claim is the argument that the police lack the authority to intervene in private property disputes and that their actions have infringed upon her rights to personal liberty, dignity, and freedom of movement.
The dispute revolves around Flat K9-2, Ocean Parade Towers, a property Fajembola occupied after Ayeni, the sixth respondent, granted her access in 2016. She claims to have invested substantial personal funds in furnishing the apartment and resided there until 2019 when she relocated to the United Kingdom. Subsequently, the apartment was utilized for short-term rentals and later leased to Expand Global Industries Ltd in 2022, a move Fajembola contends was made with Ayeni’s knowledge and consent. However, following a deterioration in their personal relationship, Ayeni and Olutoyl Estate Development & Services Ltd. allegedly began pressuring her to vacate the property and evict the tenant. Instead of pursuing legal eviction procedures through the courts, Fajembola alleges that the respondents resorted to using the police to exert undue pressure on her, her agent, and the tenant.
Fajembola maintains that she and others involved were summoned to police stations and subjected to harassment and intimidation. She categorically denies reports of her arrest or detention, labeling them false and malicious. Furthermore, she asserts that she formally handed over the apartment, including her furnishings and appliances, to Ayeni and the real estate firm in April 2025. Despite relinquishing the property, she claims the harassment and threats have persisted, causing her significant emotional distress and making it unsafe for her to return to Lagos. She seeks N50 million in damages for the alleged violation of her rights and an injunction restraining the police from further interference.
Conversely, Olutoyl Estate Development & Services Ltd. has filed a petition with the Inspector General of Police, accusing Fajembola of fraudulently converting and leasing out the same luxury apartment without authorization. The petition, submitted through their legal representatives, Legal Resources Alliance, paints a different picture of the situation. They claim that Fajembola was initially granted access to the apartment on compassionate grounds due to her alleged homelessness. This act of kindness, they argue, was never intended to confer tenancy rights or authorize her to sublet the property. The company alleges that Fajembola, through her company GIF Energy Resources Limited, leased the apartment for over three years, generating substantial rental income exceeding N100 million without their knowledge or consent.
Olutoyl Estate Development & Services Ltd. contends that Fajembola exploited their generosity for personal financial gain, causing them significant economic losses and reputational damage. They express shock that someone granted access out of compassion would allegedly commercialize the property for personal enrichment. The petition, formally acknowledged by the Inspector General of Police, frames Fajembola’s actions as a calculated scheme of fraudulent conversion and unauthorized leasing. This conflicting narrative underscores the complexities of the dispute and the contrasting perspectives of the parties involved.
This case highlights the potential misuse of police authority in private civil disputes. Fajembola’s lawsuit attempts to establish clear boundaries for police intervention in such matters. Her argument centers on the principle that police resources should not be deployed to settle private disputes, particularly those involving property, which fall under the purview of civil courts. The court’s decision in this case could have significant implications for the protection of fundamental human rights and the proper role of law enforcement in civil matters. The contrasting narratives presented by Fajembola and Olutoyl Estate Development & Services Ltd. underscore the need for a thorough judicial examination of the facts and circumstances surrounding the dispute.
The fundamental question before the court is whether the police acted within their legal authority or overstepped their bounds by intervening in a private contractual disagreement. Fajembola’s claim for damages hinges on proving that the police actions constituted harassment and intimidation, thus violating her fundamental rights. On the other hand, the petition filed by Olutoyl Estate Development & Services Ltd. raises questions about Fajembola’s conduct and whether she acted fraudulently in leasing the apartment. The court’s decision will ultimately depend on the evidence presented by both sides and the interpretation of the applicable laws and regulations governing property ownership and tenancy agreements. The case underscores the importance of seeking legal recourse through proper channels and the potential consequences of involving law enforcement in private civil matters.
