Justice Alexandra Owoeye of the Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos, on Wednesday, July 15, 2026, ordered the final forfeiture of 52 terrace and maisonette units located in the Lekki area of Lagos.
The properties, situated at Mercyville Estate, Covenant Way, off New Road, Ilasan, Lagos, were recovered from Fielddreams Limited, Ifeanyi Nweke, and Amex Savings and Loans Limited.
The judge made the order following a Motion on Notice filed and argued by the Lagos Zonal Directorate 2 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) through its counsel, Franklin Ofoma.
The Commission had, on August 14, 2024, secured an interim forfeiture order on the properties through Justice Akintayo Aluko, following an ex parte application filed by the EFCC through Ofoma.
The interim forfeiture order was made in favour of Dr. Kennedy Okonkwo, a real estate developer and Chief Executive Officer of Capital Gardens Limited.
In his ruling, Justice Aluko also directed the Commission to publish the interim forfeiture order in a national newspaper, inviting any interested party to show cause why the properties should not be finally forfeited to the Federal Government of Nigeria.
Following the publication, the respondents filed an affidavit to show cause why the court should not grant the final forfeiture of the properties.
In paragraphs 16 to 25 of their affidavit, the respondents stated that the funds used to develop the 52 terrace and maisonette units were derived from the sale of a portion of land acquired through the sale of 29 terrace and maisonette units valued at ₦1.9 billion.
However, they subsequently reversed their position and accused the 3rd to 19th applicants of failing to complete the various terrace and maisonette units.
This contradicted their earlier affidavit evidence, in which they had stated that the proceeds from the sales were used to complete the furnishing and interior decoration of the remaining units and that construction had been completed in 2020.
At Wednesday’s proceedings, Ofoma, while moving the application for final forfeiture, informed the court that the Commission had fully complied with the court’s directive regarding the publication of the interim forfeiture order.
He further told the court that the application was supported by a 31-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Afolabi Seyi Oladele, a litigation officer in the Legal Department of the EFCC.
According to him, the properties were reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities, and he urged the court to grant the application for final forfeiture.
Ofoma further submitted that the second respondent, Nweke, is a fugitive from justice, adding that he: “Has refused to appear before Justice R.A. Oshodi and Justice Okunuga in Charge No. ID/25771C/2025 and Charge No. ID/25769C/2025 for his arraignment and to defend the charges if he believes that he did not commit any of the offences contained therein.”
He also informed the court that there were two subsisting warrants of arrest against the second respondent and that he had jumped the administrative bail earlier granted to him by the Commission in connection with the alleged offences.
After hearing the submissions of both the applicant and the respondents, Justice Owoeye held: “Premised on the foregoing position of the law, I hold that since this court cannot pick and choose which of the evidence given by the Respondents to believe, it must consequently reject the entire affidavit evidence placed before it by the 1st–3rd Respondents.
“Accordingly, I reject the 1st–3rd Respondents’ Affidavit to Show Cause/Counter-Affidavit to the Applicant/Respondent’s Motion on Notice for Final Forfeiture filed on February 9, 2026, but deemed properly filed on April 28, 2026.
“The consequence is that there is no opposition to the Motion filed by the 1st and 2nd Applicants for the grant of an order of final forfeiture.”
The judge further held: “Premised on the foregoing, I find that, having demonstrated grounds for reasonable suspicion that the properties in question are the proceeds of unlawful activities, the applicants are entitled to the reliefs sought in this application. I therefore resolve the sole issue in this application in favour of the Applicants.”
In the final analysis, the court held: “Having resolved the sole issue in this application in favour of the applicants, I hold that this application has merit and ought to be granted. Accordingly, I grant the relief sought in this application as prayed.”
