Fairview Estate Igando Residents Drag Developer To Court Over Alleged Breach Of Estate Management Agreement

In their Written Memorandum of Claim dated September 21, 2026, a copy of which was sighted by P.M.EXPRESS, the claimants alleged that the defendants assumed management of the Estate with effect from January 1, 2025, and represented that they would provide comprehensive estate management services.

According to the claimants, the services allegedly undertaken included provision of security, armed personnel, CCTV surveillance, water supply, electricity management, sanitation, fumigation, fire safety, maintenance services, facility managers, plumbers, electricians and recreational facilities.

The claimants contend that relying on the said representations, homeowners and residents paid service charges, electricity charges and other levies demanded by the defendants.

The claimants however, alleged several breaches. They claimed that the defendants failed to provide and maintain the agreed services, failed to properly maintain common facilities, and that the swimming pool, gym house and clubhouse remained incomplete or non-functional despite assurances.

On electricity, the claimants alleged arbitrary increase in electricity charges without adequate consultation, unmetered residential units, and electricity rates allegedly in excess of applicable IKEDC tariff without transparent accounting.

They further alleged failure to render full and transparent account of all service charges, electricity charges and other levies collected, as well as failure to provide financial information on budgets, contracts and project costs.

A major issue raised in the claim concerns a 33KVA transformer. The claimants contend that while the defendants represented that a dedicated transformer would be provided for the Estate, it was allegedly financed through collective contributions of homeowners and residents, but was purchased and held in the personal name of the 2nd defendant, who allegedly exercised exclusive control over it.

The claimants state that they consequently disengaged the defendants as Estate Managers by letter dated June 29, 2026.

The claimants also alleged that on August 29, 2026, the defendants circulated a notice concerning introduction of an Access Card system at the Estate entrance effective September 1, 2026, which they contend constitutes interference with quiet enjoyment and possession of their properties.

The Claimants are asking the court for several declaratory and injunctive reliefs, including:

1. A declaration that the service levy agreement embedded in the Deed of Assignment has been validly determined and terminated.

2. A declaration that Fairview Estate does not belong to the Defendants having allegedly sold their interest to subscribers.

3. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from parading themselves as owners or managers of the estate.

4. An order directing the Defendants to render a comprehensive and audited account of all charges collected.

5. An order for refund of sums found to have been misappropriated, unaccounted for, or excess electricity charges collected.

6. An order directing rehabilitation of swimming pool, gym house and clubhouse.

7. An order for refund of monies contributed for the 33KVA transformer.

8. General damages of N500,000,000 and exemplary damages of N250,000,000, plus 10% interest per annum until liquidation, and costs of the action.

The Claimants also stated in the document that they remain amenable to structured settlement, provided it addresses termination of service levy agreement, cessation of acts suggesting ownership, withdrawal of Police complaints allegedly instituted at FCID Alagbon, handover of estate assets, rehabilitation of communal facilities, refund of transformer cost with interest at CBN MPR, full accounting, and cessation of interference with residents’ access.

In response to the residents’ claims, Brick Shelters Nigeria Limited, through its solicitors, Professor Paul C. Ananaba SAN & Co, in a letter dated October 7, 2026, denied all allegations in their entirety.

The developer contends that the estate is a service estate and that every buyer voluntarily executed a Deed of Assignment and Terms and Conditions for Sale and Allocation which expressly confer on Brick Shelters the responsibility and authority to manage, regulate and maintain common facilities.

The developer cited Clause 12 of the Terms and Conditions which provides that every owner shall pay annual maintenance cost for services and utilities, and that the Deed of Assignment allows Brick Shelters to make Rules and Regulations for smooth running of the estate with administrative charges determined from time to time in agreement with residents.

The developer said it is baffling that residents who enjoyed benefits of a managed estate now seek to disregard the contract, stating that they cannot approbate and reprobate.

Brick Shelters said it has diligently discharged its responsibilities and that it is the residents who from May 2026 to date, allegedly failed to pay service charges, which affected effective management.

On electricity, the developer said it is not IKEDC or statutory supplier, that charges are determined by electricity distribution arrangements including IKEDC, and that it only communicated costs in ordinary estate administration. It put residents to strict proof of alleged overcharging.

On the transformer, the developer said the allegation of appropriation is false, misconceived and unsupported, and put residents to strict proof of ownership.

It also denied interfering with residents’ quiet enjoyment, saying any measure on access and security was pursuant to its management responsibility.

As at press time, the matter is yet to be assigned and no date has been fixed for hearing. The Defendants are yet to file their defence. All allegations remain unproven and subject to determination by the court.