By Staff Reporter
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Dr. Monday Onyekachi Ubani has sounded the alarm over the rampant abuse of the judicial system by sophisticated land-grabbing syndicates who exploit legal loopholes to seize properties worth millions of naira across Lagos.
Dr. Ubani, SAN, a renowned legal practitioner and public affairs analyst, disclosed that these criminal networks deliberately target vulnerable property owners—especially those residing abroad—through a web of deception, forged documents, and compromised legal processes. He called for urgent reforms to restore confidence in the judicial process and curb what he described as “organised legal banditry.””
Sharing his experience from active legal battles, Ubani detailed the case of a UK-based Nigerian widow whose three plots of land behind the former Tasty Fried Chicken building on Opebi Road, Ikeja, were nearly stolen through a fraudulent judgment obtained from an Ikeja Magistrate Court. According to Ubani, the syndicate falsely claimed that the property was unoccupied following the supposed death of the rightful owner. “Their strategy was anchored on the assumption that the rightful owner was deceased,” he explained. “However, my client was very much alive at the time, only passing away last year.” The group, posing as a legitimate land-owning family, moved swiftly to obtain a writ of possession, aided by a legal practitioner notorious in the Ikeja axis for facilitating such illicit activities. Within days, they had taken over the property and begun advertising it to unsuspecting buyers for millions of naira.
The fraud came to light when tenants residing on the property alerted Ubani, who immediately launched an investigation. It turned out that the so-called opposing party in the case was actually a member of the syndicate—placed there to deliberately lose the case, thereby granting the group legal cover to perfect the land theft. When Ubani filed a challenge backed with valid documentation, including the original Certificate of Occupancy, the fraudsters attempted to validate their claim using an alleged judgment from the 1920s. They claimed the ancient ruling granted their ancestors ownership of a vast expanse of land stretching from Ikeja to Agege. But when pressed by the court to produce a survey plan or any tangible delineation of the said land, their story quickly unraveled.
Ubani praised the presiding Magistrate, describing her as “sharp, fearless, and principled,” for setting aside the fraudulent judgment. Knowing the syndicate would attempt to frustrate the reversal by rushing to file an appeal, Ubani acted decisively and reclaimed possession of the land by 8:00 a.m. on the very day the appeal was expected—effectively beating the fraudsters at their own game and securing justice for his client.
Not relenting, the syndicate escalated the matter by filing a false police report accusing Ubani and his client of trespassing. They attempted to manipulate law enforcement to harass the rightful owner and slow down the legal victory. But after a thorough review of documents and facts by the Assistant Commissioner of Police at Zone 2, Onikan, the fraudulent claims were dismissed outright. The police not only refused to intervene but warned the claimants and their lawyer against making further attempts to abuse the system, threatening legal action for any future presentation of forged documents.
Ubani is currently handling another case of similar nature involving a Jos-based property owner who had been in undisturbed possession of his land since before the Nigerian Civil War. During the war, the Lagos State Government temporarily acquired the land, but it was later returned. Despite decades of quiet ownership, a syndicate filed a suit claiming adverse possession and again used a family member as a nominal defendant who did not contest the claim—mirroring the tactics used in the Ikeja case. The rightful owner was deliberately excluded from the process, allowing the fraudsters to manipulate the proceedings in their favour.
Ubani explained that these fraudulent schemes follow a common playbook. Syndicates typically file cases using fictitious or complicit defendants who fail to contest the suit. They exploit the process of substituted service by pasting notices in obscure locations or at odd hours, taking photographs for evidence, then quickly removing the notices before anyone can see them. Their primary targets are absentee owners, particularly those living overseas or believed to be dead. To bolster their false claims, they often employ lawyers with questionable reputations and manufacture historical documents that allegedly establish ownership—none of which can stand under rigorous scrutiny.
The legal expert stressed that systemic reforms are urgently needed to disrupt this growing criminal enterprise. He proposed that in cases where substituted service is claimed or where defendants are “unknown,” courts should be mandated to conduct physical inspections (locus in quo) of the land in question. He further called for a review of procedural rules that allow unknown persons to be named as defendants, stating that such provisions enable fraud and should be strictly regulated.
Ubani warned that these methods are not limited to low-profile cases, as even properties owned by prominent Nigerians have fallen victim to such tactics despite valid title documents and long-standing possession. He urged property owners, especially those in the diaspora, to actively monitor their properties and ensure they are represented by competent legal counsel.
Yet, despite these troubling trends, Ubani expressed firm belief in the power of the Nigerian legal system when used with integrity and strategic precision. “The Nigerian legal system, though imperfect, is still a formidable instrument for the protection of property rights when wielded with integrity, precision, and tenacity,” he concluded.
The revelations underscore the dire need for vigilance and reform in Nigeria’s judicial processes, particularly as land-grabbing syndicates become more sophisticated in their manipulation of the courts. Without decisive action, more innocent property owners stand to lose their lawful assets in a system that too often enables the very fraud it ought to prevent.
