By Ogunsakin Mustapha
Bailiffs of the Federal High Court in Lagos on August 28, 2025 evicted popular comedian, Atunyota Alleluya Akpobome otherwise known as Ali Baba and his company, XQZMOI TV, from No 324A, Akin Ogunlewe Street, Victoria Island, Lagos, over a controversial sale of the property by the Assets Management Corporation (AMCON).
The sale has been reversed by the court and given back to the family of the owner who is now deceased, and his company Harold Expansion Industries Nigeria Limited.
The bailiffs’ action was sequel to the court’s writ of possession signed by a Federal High Court Judge on August 15, 2025. Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa delivered judgment on July 31, 2015, in a suit brought before him by AMCON as Plaintiff, against Harold Expansion Industries Limited as Defendant, but in which Harod Expansion counter-sued AMCON by filing a counterclaim. In its judgement, the court dismissed the claim brought by AMCON, and ruled in favour of the counter Claimant, and reversed the sale of the property which was occupied by Ali Baba and his company; and ordered a return of the property to the original owner.
In the suit, AMCON claimed the defendant was indebted to the defunct Bank PhB (now Keystone Bank) to the tune of N617 million, the loan which it took over according to the laws that set it up. The loan was allegedly taken at different times, viz: N60 million on May 15, 2008, N20 million on January 17, 2008, and another N30 million on August 28, 2008, all amounting to N129 million. AMCON eventually sold the house for N220 million and reportedly used the money to offset part of the alleged indebtedness. The corporation however claimed that despite the sale, it was still indebted to the tune of N616.1m.
Front view of the property at No 324A, Akin Ogunlewe Street, Victoria Island, Lagos
However, the company counterclaimed through an action filed by its lawyer, Benjamin Olayiwola Sadibo of George Ikoli & Okagbue law firm, denying the debt. In their counterclaim, the defendant stated that “contrary to the plaintiff’s averments, the sum of N 129 million contained in the offer dated September 2, 2009 was the product of the consolidation and restructuring of what the bank computed to be outstanding on the facilities availed in January, May, and August of 2008, the repayment of which the bank had been deducting from the inception – from the first loan in January 2008”.
The defendant therefore counter claimed as follows:
- A declaration that the counterclaimant is not indebted to the defendant
- An order of the honourable court setting aside the sale of the counterclaimant property situate at and known as 324A, Akin Ogunlewe Street, Victoria Island, covered by the Lagos State Certificate of Occupancy dated 25th day of October 1990 and registered as Number 41 at the Lands Registry Office, Ikeja, Lagos State carried out during the pendency of this suit.
- An order of this honourable court granting control and possession of the counterclaimant property situate and known as 324A Akin Ogunlewe Street, Victoria Island, Lagos State and covered by the Lagos State Certificate of Occupancy dated 25th day of October 1990 and registered as Number 41 at page 41 in Volume 1990AG at the Lands Registry Office, Ikeja Lagos State to the counterclaimant;
- An order of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to take all steps that are necessary towards delivering vacant possession of the property situate at and known as 324A Akin Ogunlewe Street Victoria Island Lagos State and covered by the Lagos State Certificate of Occupancy dated 25th day of October, 1990 and as number 41 at page 41 in Volume 1990AG at the Lands Registry Office Ikeja, Lagos State to the Counterclaimant;
- An order of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to release and hand over to the plaintiff all the original documents of the property situate at and known as 324A Akin Ogunlewe Street Victoria Island Lagos State and covered by the Lagos State Certificate of Occupancy dated the 25th day of October 1990 and registered as Number 41 at page 41 in Volume 1990AG at the Lands Registry Office, Ikeja, Lagos State;
- Damages in the sum of N500 million against the defendant.
In his judgment, Justice Lewis-Allagoa brought out two issues for determination: Whether the plaintiff has proved its case to be entitled to the reliefs sought, and whether the defendant is entitled to its counter claim.
The ocean view opposite the new Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway
Citing Section 131(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 which states that “whoever desires any court to give judgement as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts shall prove that those facts exists”, Justice Lewis-Allagoa said the plaintiff has not controverted the claims of the Counterclaimant/defendant by exhibiting documents to prove its case. The judge cited a plethora of decided cases which ought to have guided the plaintiff in its presentation before the court, but which it did not do. “In the instant action, the burden of prove in the first instance is on the plaintiff. It is noted that the plaintiff’s main claim, upon which the other reliefs derive, is declaratory in nature. The burden of proof on the plaintiff in establishing declaratory reliefs to the satisfaction of the court is quite heavy in the sense that such declaratory reliefs are not granted even in admission by the defendant”, the judge said.
In particular, the judge faulted AMCON’s failure to exhibit the defendant’s Statement of Account which he said was fatal to its case. “The plaintiff being an alleged creditor, who has approached the court alleging a party owes it a specified sum of money has a duty to not only come parading the documents used in conveying the loan facilities to the deceased but also demonstrably show how it arrived at the amount claimed, and the first proof and step in this regard is the alleged debtor’s Statement of Account and the failure to produce it is fatal to the plaintiff’s case”, he stated adding that “without more, I hold that the plaintiff failed to prove its case on the preponderance of evidence. The plaintiff’s case is hereby dismissed”.
On the second issue for determination which is whether the defendant is entitled to its counter claim, Justice Lewis-Allagoa stated that since the plaintiff did not file a defence to the counterclaim, “the law is trite that where a defendant counter claims against a claimant, the latter is duty bound to file a defence to the counter claim; otherwise the court is obliged to assume that the claimant has no defence to counter claim and may enter judgement for the defendant accordingly. This is because where a defendant pleads certain facts in his pleading in support of his counter claim, with all necessary particulars, but the claimant fails to reply them, no issue is raised on such defendant’s pleading. The court can proceed to give judgement without much ado”, he said.
The judge thereafter entered judgement in favour of the counter claimant by granting all reliefs sought, including N500 million damages against AMCON.