Broad Street Property: Court Halts Further Demolition After Council’s 48-Hour Quit Notice
Wale Igbintade
The Lagos State High Court has halted further demolition and construction on a disputed property at 168 Broad Street, Lagos Island, following a 48-hour quit notice issued by the Lagos Island Local Government.
Justice Yetunde Adesanya granted the pre-emptive order after the property’s alleged owner, Dr. Abimbola Adebowale, claimed that the premises were partly demolished and subsequently taken over by Taiwo Ige Yusuf, who allegedly commenced preparations to develop the land.
The court’s intervention followed an enforcement notice issued by the Lagos Island Local Government directing occupiers of the property to vacate the premises and remove containers and other structures described by the council as illegal.
In the notice dated August 6, 2026, and signed by Ojora A.O. for the Council Engineer, the local government warned that failure to comply within 48 hours could result in appropriate enforcement action in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.
The notice subsequently became part of a wider dispute over the property.
The applicant alleged that the premises were partly demolished and that, following the local government’s intervention, the first defendant, Yusuf, allegedly took possession of the property and commenced steps to develop the land.
She further alleged that the defendants forcefully ejected tenants from the property and partly demolished the structure before barricading the premises with aluminium zinc, allegedly in preparation for further demolition and construction.
The sequence of events prompted the applicant to approach the court for a pre-emptive remedy, contending that further demolition or construction could cause irreparable damage before the parties completed the required pre-action protocol.
In an 11-paragraph affidavit filed in support of the application, Babatunde Bello, a staff member of United Capital Trustee Limited, stated that the company had managed the property since 2016 without disturbance until the alleged recent encroachment.
Bello stated that Adebowale had appointed United Capital Trustee Limited as trustee of her properties through a Deed of Trust dated August 8, 2026.
He further stated that on August 19, 2026, the defendants allegedly forcefully ejected tenants from the property without prior notice or the claimant’s consent and subsequently partly demolished the structure in the middle of the night.
According to the affidavit, the defendants thereafter barricaded the property with aluminium zinc, allegedly with the intention of completely demolishing the remaining structure and commencing construction.
The applicant, through her counsel, Waheed Isiaka of KISAB Solicitors & Attorneys, urged the court to preserve the property pending completion of the pre-action protocol.
She relied on Orders 1 and 2 of Practice Direction No. 2 of 2019, which empower the court to grant pre-emptive remedies where necessary in the interest of justice or to prevent irreparable damage or serious mischief.
Ruling on the application, Justice Adesanya held that the applicant had satisfied the conditions required for the grant of a pre-emptive remedy.
The judge held that an applicant seeking such an order must establish that irreparable damage or serious mischief may occur if the order is not granted, attach a Memorandum of Claim, demonstrate an urgent need to preserve the subject matter of the dispute and explain why the pre-action protocol had not yet been fully complied with.
According to the judge, the requirements had been satisfied by the averments contained in the applicant’s affidavits, the Memorandum of Claim and the exhibits tendered in support of the application.
Justice Adesanya consequently restrained Yusuf, the unidentified defendants and their privies, agents and proxies from completely demolishing, dissipating, excavating or constructing on the property pending full compliance with the pre-action protocol.
The judge, however, made clear that the protective order was temporary and conditional, directing the applicant to comply fully with the pre-action protocol within the timelines stipulated by the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019 and Practice Direction No. 2 of 2019.
Justice Adesanya warned that failure to comply within the prescribed timelines would cause the order to lapse.
The ruling has, for the time being, placed a judicial restraint on further physical alteration of the disputed property while the parties proceed with the pre-action process and work towards resolving the underlying ownership and possession dispute.