Justice Alexandra Owoeye of the Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi has granted the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) the final forfeiture of 52 terrace and maisonette units located in the Lekki area of Lagos.

According to the EFCC, the properties, located at Mercyville Estate, Covenant Way, off New Road, Ilasan in Lagos, were recovered from Fielddreams Limited, Ifeanyi Nweke and Amex Savings and Loans Limited.

The judge gave the order following a Motion on Notice filed and argued by the Lagos Zonal Directorate 2 of the anti-graft agency, through its counsel, Franklin Ofoma.

It was learnt that the Commission had, on August 14, 2024, secured the interim forfeiture of the properties through an order granted by Justice Akintayo Aluko, following an ex parte application filed by the EFCC in favour of one 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 of the order, the respondents filed an affidavit to show cause why the court should not grant the final forfeiture of the properties,” the EFCC said.

“Initially, 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 One Billion, Nine Hundred Million Naira (₦1,900,000,000.00).

“They, however, subsequently made a U-turn, accusing 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 they used the proceeds from the sale to complete the furnishing and interior decoration of the remaining units and that construction had been completed in 2020.”

The EFCC added that at Wednesday’s proceedings, Ofoma, while moving the application for the final forfeiture of the properties, informed the court that the Commission had fully complied with the court’s order regarding the publication of the interim forfeiture.

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 their final forfeiture.

Ofoma further submitted that the second respondent, Nweke, is a criminal fugitive, 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 in the charges against him.”

He further informed the court that there were two subsisting warrants of arrest against the second respondent, adding that he had jumped the administrative bail earlier granted him by the Commission over the alleged offences.

After listening to the submissions of both the applicant and the respondents, Justice Owoeye held that “Premised on the foregoing position of the law, I hold that since this court cannot pick and choose which of the evidence given by 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 the 9th of February, 2026, but deemed properly filed on the 28th of April, 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 that, “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 that, “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.”