Documents relating to a protracted land dispute over a property in Lekki, Lagos, have provided a legal context for the request for police protection made to the Assistant Inspector-General of Police, AIG Jimoh Moshood, with no evidence in the materials indicating that the senior police officer acted outside his official responsibilities.
The documents include a judgment of the Lagos State High Court delivered on June 30, 2025, and a subsequent application for police protection submitted to the AIG, Zone 2, by the law firm of C.O. Toyin Pinheiro & Co., on behalf of Skyview Properties Limited.
The application, dated October 21, 2026, sought police presence at Plot 37, Block 77, Lekki Peninsula Scheme I, Lagos, to enable the company’s representatives to undertake development and construction work on the property.
Follow PenTalk News
Get breaking news, important updates and the latest stories directly on your phone.
In the letter addressed to the AIG at the Zone 2 Headquarters, Onikan, Lagos, the solicitors informed the police that their client had instituted an action before the Lagos State High Court and obtained judgment in its favour.
They specifically referenced Suit No. LD/1006CMW/2015, in which the court, presided over by Justice K. A. Jose, delivered judgment on June 30, 2025.
The solicitors stated that the judgment confirmed their client’s title to the property, registered as No. 37 at Page 37 in Volume 2491 of the Lands Registry.
They also attached a Certified True Copy of the judgment to substantiate the legal basis of their request.
The letter explained that police protection was being sought in anticipation of possible resistance or disturbances during the proposed construction exercise.
Importantly, the solicitors made the request formally on behalf of their client rather than presenting the police with an independent claim of ownership or asking the AIG to determine the competing interests in the property.
They further indicated that Skyview Properties Limited was prepared to provide the necessary logistics to facilitate police support.
The correspondence, therefore, establishes that the request for police presence was accompanied by a court judgment and was presented through the company’s legal representatives.
A review of the judgment shows that the dispute involved Skyview Properties Limited and Mr. Samuel Alao Ajibode, alongside the Attorney-General of Lagos State and the Executive Secretary of the Lagos State Land Bureau.
The company had approached the court seeking, among other reliefs, a declaration concerning its interest in the property, an order restraining Ajibode from further trespassing and harassing its representatives, and damages.
In its case, the company maintained that the property had previously been sold to one Yomi Edu, who subsequently transferred his interest to it.
It also told the court that Ajibode later executed a deed of assignment in its favour for valuable consideration and that the transaction was processed through the Lagos State Government, with the requisite Governor’s consent obtained.
The company further contended that Ajibode subsequently disputed the transaction and petitioned the police over alleged forgery of his signature and other property documents.
Ajibode, however, denied selling the property to Yomi Edu or executing the disputed deed of assignment in favour of Skyview Properties Limited.
He maintained that the N500,000 paid to him was a deposit towards a proposed transaction that never materialised, insisting that the agreed purchase price was N50 million.
He also alleged that his signature had been forged and challenged the company’s claim to ownership.
The dispute consequently involved competing accounts of the property’s ownership, the circumstances surrounding the alleged transactions and the authenticity of the documents relied upon by the parties.
During the proceedings, the court heard evidence from witnesses, including a retired police forensic expert, Reginald Udenze, who testified about the examination of signatures on documents submitted for forensic analysis.
The expert explained that his findings were based on the samples presented to him for examination, while acknowledging that he did not know the parties to the dispute.
The judgment also examined the competing forensic reports and the evidence presented by both sides.
At the conclusion of the proceedings, the court dismissed Ajibode’s counterclaim and awarded N2 million as costs in favour of Skyview Properties Limited against him.
The court also struck out the reliefs relating to the revocation of the property’s right of occupancy by the Lagos State Government.
Against this background, the subsequent application to the AIG for police protection was presented as a request arising from an existing legal dispute in which the applicant relied on a court judgment.
The documents available do not establish that Moshood made any pronouncement on the ownership of the property, interfered with the court proceedings or directed the police to take sides against any of the parties.
Neither do they, on their own, establish that the AIG authorised any unlawful eviction, demolition or seizure of the property.
The distinction is significant, as the responsibility for determining competing claims to land ownership rests with the courts, while the police have a separate responsibility to prevent breaches of the peace and maintain public order.
Consequently, any assessment of the AIG’s conduct must be based on evidence of specific instructions or actions attributable to him, rather than merely on the fact that a request for police protection was addressed to his office.
The available correspondence and court records provide the background to the request but do not, by themselves, demonstrate misconduct by the Zone 2 police.
