N21.5bn Lekki Land: Bravematt Alleges Plot to Take Over Property, Names Surveyor-General, Indian Businessman, Army Colonel as Accomplices

 

Bravematt Property and Investment Limited has alleged a coordinated attempt to take over its N21.5 billion property at Maiyegun Tourism Zone, Lekki, Lagos, naming the Surveyor-General of the Federation, a businessman identified as Ramesh Kasangra and a Nigerian Army officer among those it says are connected with the dispute.

The allegations are contained in the company’s account of its acquisition and subsequent possession of the 13.067-hectare property comprising Plots 5, 6, 7 and 8, Maiyegun Tourism Zone, Lekki Peninsula Scheme II, Ibeju, Eti-Osa Local Government Area.

The property, situated along the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway, is covered by a Lagos State Certificate of Occupancy dated July 15, 1988.

According to court processes filed by Bravematt, the company acquired the property from Industrial and General Insurance Plc (IGI) and its sister company, 4H Nigeria Limited, following negotiations that culminated in an Agreement for Sale.

The company said the property was initially offered to it for N22 billion through Bradfield Limited, which had been appointed by the vendors as their agent to procure buyers.
Bravematt subsequently made a counter-offer of N21.5 billion in a letter dated June 5, 2025.

The company said 4H accepted the offer in writing on June 13, 2025, communicated the terms of payment, while IGI, in whose name the property was registered, subsequently approved the transaction through a board resolution.

An Agreement for Sale was thereafter executed.
Bravematt said it paid N10 billion and N2 billion respectively, followed by a further N7.475 billion, bringing the total amount it says it paid to N21.475 billion.

The company said the final payment was made in accordance with the agreed terms but that the vendors subsequently disputed receipt of the final instalment and sought to withdraw from the transaction.

The dispute prompted Bravematt to approach the Lagos State High Court for urgent protection of its interest in the property.

On December 10, 2025, Justice (Dr.) R. O. Olukolu of the Lagos State High Court, sitting in the Commercial/Fast-Track Division, restrained IGI and 4H, their agents, privies, licensees and prospective purchasers from entering into any transaction, undertaking or commitment that could lead to the assignment or transfer of their interest in the property or any part thereof.

The court also prohibited the respondents from dealing with the property in any manner capable of altering its state pending compliance with the applicable pre-action protocol.

In a related order, the court restrained the respondents from withdrawing funds from 4H’s Keystone Bank account in a manner that would reduce the balance below N7.475 billion.

In granting the application, Justice Olukolu held that the circumstances presented by Bravematt and supported by documentary exhibits disclosed a “prima facie serious mischief” warranting the intervention of the court.

The order was made pending compliance with the applicable pre-action protocol within 14 days.

Bravematt said the dispute subsequently came under the scrutiny of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) after Kabiru Ayinde Tukur allegedly disputed receipt of the purchase price.

According to the company, the EFCC obtained relevant Keystone Bank records which it said confirmed that the payment was received into the designated account on November 28, 2025, at about 9:02 a.m.

Bravematt further alleged that Tukur subsequently acknowledged receipt of the funds.

The company also alleged that the EFCC investigation brought to light another transaction involving the property.

According to Bravematt, Tukur had purportedly entered into a separate transaction involving a portion of the property with Chief Ekomieyefa Uduboh, from whom more than N6.6 billion had allegedly been collected as of December 2025.

Bravematt said the development led to questions concerning the competing transactions involving the property.

The company further alleged that Tukur subsequently sought leniency and offered to refund the money allegedly collected from Uduboh while restoring and confirming the property in favour of Bravematt.

Bravematt said Tukur subsequently executed a Deed of Assignment transferring the property to the company and acknowledging receipt of the purchase price in full.

The company added that the execution of the documents was captured on video and that relevant title and transaction documents were handed over to it, except the original Certificate of Occupancy.

According to Bravematt, the documentation and transfer process were substantially completed in February 2026, after which it was formally put into possession.

The company subsequently erected its signboard, commenced a fresh survey and began perimeter fencing.

Bravematt said it remained in possession for several months before the latest confrontation over the property.

According to the company, on or about July 12, 2026, it received information that the Managing Director and Company Secretary respectively of IGI Plc had sold 4H Limited to an unidentified entity and transferred the original Certificate of Occupancy relating to the property to that entity.

Bravematt’s General Counsel, E. O. Jakpa, subsequently contacted Tukur and Akinyele seeking clarification, but the company said neither responded.

The company thereafter caused a caveat to be published in Vanguard newspaper on July 15, 2026, notifying the public of its interest in the property.

The dispute escalated on August 15, 2026, when Bravematt alleged that persons claiming to act on behalf of 44 Hospitality Limited entered the property accompanied by some security personnel and other persons.

The company alleged that 44 Hospitality Limited was owned or controlled by Ramesh Kasangra.

According to Bravematt, the group said its presence on the property was connected with protecting the Federal Government’s right of way and enforcing an alleged 150-metre setback along the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway.

Bravematt, however, alleged that the security personnel accompanied the private individuals onto the property and participated in the removal of items belonging to the company, including its signboard.

The company further alleged that its staff and workers were asked to leave the property and that threats were issued against persons attempting to access or remain there.

Bravematt subsequently contacted the Commanding Officer of the 65 Battalion of the Nigerian Army, Lt. Col. Adeojo, alleging that soldiers under his command were providing security cover for persons interfering with its possession of the property.

According to Bravematt, the Commanding Officer denied that his soldiers were stationed on the company’s property, maintaining that they were positioned along the adjoining road.

The company said it invited the officer to visit the location to verify the position and conduct of the soldiers but that he did not attend.
Bravematt further alleged that soldiers could still be seen within the area it identified as its property.

The company’s concerns also extend to the position it said was communicated by the Surveyor-General of the Federation.

Bravematt said it contacted the Surveyor-General to ascertain the basis upon which persons allegedly acting under his authority were interfering with the property.

According to the company, the Surveyor-General maintained that the land fell within a Federal Government setback.

Bravematt said that when it drew his attention to the approximately 130,000 square metres constituting the property outside the roadway, he maintained that the entire area constituted Federal Government land.

The company further alleged that the Surveyor-General stated that, because there were competing claims or interests over the property, it was within his responsibility to conduct a survey and determine the extent of the competing interests.

Bravematt has challenged that position, arguing that questions of ownership of disputed land are matters for a court of competent jurisdiction.

The company maintains that the property is Lagos State land covered by a Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Lagos State Government.

It also contends that the position attributed to the Surveyor-General is inconsistent with Sections 43 and 44 of the 1999 Constitution, which protect the right to acquire and own immovable property and prescribe safeguards relating to compulsory acquisition.

Bravematt maintains that its interest in the property is supported by the payment trail, the court order protecting the property from further dealings, the Deed of Assignment, the transaction documents and its subsequent possession of the property.

The company is consequently questioning how third parties could subsequently seek to interfere with its possession while an earlier court order restrained IGI, 4H, their agents and prospective purchasers from entering into transactions capable of transferring or assigning their interests in the property.

The allegations have raised questions concerning the competing claims to the land, the status of the Lagos State Certificate of Occupancy, the scope of the Federal Government’s claimed setback along the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway and the basis for the presence of security personnel at the property.