Bravematt Property and Investment Limited has alleged a coordinated attempt to take over its N21.5 billion property at the Maiyegun Tourism Zone, Lekki, Lagos.
It named a senior government official, a foreign national and an army officer among those allegedly involved in the unfolding dispute.
The allegation is contained in an account of the company’s acquisition and subsequent possession of the 13.067-hectare property, comprising Plots 5, 6, 7, and 8, Maiyegun Tourism Zone, Lekki Peninsula Scheme II, Ibeju, Eti-Osa Local Government Area.
The property, which is situated along the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway, is covered by a Lagos State Certificate of Occupancy dated July 15, 1988.
Bravematt called for the resolution of the dispute over the property valued at about N21.5 billion.
The property is covered by a Lagos State Certificate of Occupancy dated July 15, 1988.
Bravematt said it acquired the property from Industrial and General Insurance Plc (IGI) and 4H Nigeria Limited following negotiations that resulted in an Agreement for Sale.
According to court processes filed by the company, the property was initially offered for N22 billion through an appointed agent, but Bravematt made a counter-offer of N21.5 billion in a letter dated June 5, 2025.
The company said the offer was accepted on June 13, 2025, after which the parties proceeded with the transaction.
Bravematt said it paid N10 billion and N2 billion in instalments, followed by a further N7.475 billion, bringing the total amount paid to N21.475 billion.
A disagreement subsequently arose over the transaction, prompting the company to approach the Lagos State High Court for protection of its interest in the property.
On December 10, 2025, Justice R. O. Olukolu of the Lagos State High Court, sitting in the Commercial/Fast-Track Division, made an interim order restraining IGI, 4H, their agents and prospective purchasers from entering into transactions that could lead to the assignment or transfer of interests in the property pending compliance with the applicable pre-action protocol.
The court also restrained dealings with the property that could alter its state and made a related order concerning funds in a 4H bank account.
The order followed an application by Bravematt supported by documentary evidence relating to the transaction.
The company said the parties subsequently continued discussions over the transaction and documentation.
It said a Deed of Assignment was later executed in its favour, while transaction documents were handed over to it. Bravematt also said it was subsequently put in possession of the property.
Following its reported possession, the company erected a signboard, commenced a fresh survey and began perimeter fencing.
The dispute resurfaced in July 2026 when Bravematt said it received information concerning developments involving 4H and the original Certificate of Occupancy.
The company said it sought clarification from the relevant parties but did not receive a response that resolved its concerns.
It subsequently published a caveat in a national newspaper on July 15, 2026, notifying the public of its claimed interest in the property.
A further dispute arose on August 15, 2026, when persons reportedly entered the property amid competing claims concerning the land and the Federal Government’s right of way along the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway.
Bravematt said the disagreement involved the interpretation and application of a proposed setback associated with the highway project.
The company maintains that its property, which extends beyond the roadway, is covered by the Lagos State title document and that any competing claim to the land should be determined through the appropriate legal process.
Another issue in contention is the extent of the Federal Government’s interest in land required for the coastal highway and the effect, if any, of the proposed setback on the property.
Bravematt has questioned the administrative basis for treating the disputed area as falling within a Federal Government setback, arguing that questions of ownership and title should be resolved by a court of competent jurisdiction.
The company has also raised concerns over the involvement of security personnel in the dispute, maintaining that disagreements over possession and title should not be resolved through physical occupation or eviction.
At the centre of the controversy are the competing claims over the property, the validity and effect of the existing Lagos State Certificate of Occupancy, the status of the subsequent transaction documents, and the extent of land required for the Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway.
Bravematt said its position is supported by the payment trail, the Agreement for Sale, subsequent transaction documents, the court order and its claimed possession of the property.
The company is therefore seeking a resolution of the dispute through due process, with the parties’ respective interests determined by the appropriate authorities and, where necessary, a court of competent jurisdiction.
Bravematt maintains that any competing claim should be properly documented and determined through lawful procedures rather than by unilateral action.
The company said it remains interested in resolving the matter through the appropriate legal and administrative channels.