A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Abuja has restrained the Chief Executive Officer of Shelter Gold Group, Mr. Philip Isah, from selling, leasing or otherwise dealing with a disputed parcel of land in the Gudu District pending the determination of a suit before it.
The order was granted by Justice Abubakar Shani of the FCT High Court while ruling on an application for interlocutory injunction filed by Abuja businessman, Obinna Nkemjika.
In the ruling delivered on February 18, but a certified true copy sighted on Saturday , the court directed Isah, his agents or anyone acting on his behalf not to sell, lease, mortgage, alienate or encumber the property located at Plot 17, Gudu District, Cadastral Zone B01, measuring about 1,535.742 square metres.
The order followed a suit marked CV/4117/2025 in which Nkemjika alleged breach of a land sale agreement.
Through his lawyer, Etaba Agbor, the claimant told the court that he had paid ₦220 million for the property but had yet to receive vacant possession or the necessary documents to perfect his title.
According to his witness statement on oath, despite collecting the money, the defendant allegedly failed to execute the sale agreement and hand over the Certificate of Occupancy for the property.
Nkemjika is asking the court to declare that he is entitled to vacant possession of the land and to compel the defendant to execute the sale agreement and release the Certificate of Occupancy.
He also seeks ₦100 million as general damages for alleged breach of contract, ₦30 million as cost of the action and 10 per cent post-judgment interest until the judgment sum is fully paid.
In granting the interlocutory injunction, the court held that the claimant had placed sufficient material before it to justify the preservation of the property pending the determination of the substantive suit.
Justice Shani noted that the claimant presented evidence of an agreement for the sale of the land as well as proof of payments amounting to ₦220 million, which he said represented a substantial portion of the purchase price.
The court held that the evidence raised serious issues for determination and that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the property.
According to the judge, if the land were transferred to third parties before the case is concluded, the claimant’s request for specific performance could be defeated.
The court also observed that land is unique and cannot easily be compensated with damages if disposed of while litigation is ongoing.
Justice Shani consequently ordered that the property should remain untouched until the court resolves the dispute.
The matter was adjourned to April 1, 2026 for hearing of the substantive suit, with the court directing accelerated hearing of the case.
Court records indicate that the defendant was absent and not represented when the ruling was delivered, while Agbor appeared for the claimant.
In this article