A joint venture agreement for the construction of 18 apartments has triggered a major property dispute in Lagos, with the landowner alleging that developer Levitikal expanded the project to more than 44 units, attempted to mortgage the entire property and sold apartments to third parties beyond its agreed entitlement.

The dispute, involving Levitikal and Mr. Samuel Ajose, centres on a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) executed in May 2021 for the development of 18 three-bedroom apartments, to be shared equally between the landowner and the developer.

Under the agreement, the landowner was entitled to nine apartments, while Levitikal was to retain the remaining nine upon successful completion of the project. According to the landowner, the agreement did not transfer ownership of the land to the developer.

However, she alleges that Levitikal subsequently partitioned the development into more than 44 one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments without her knowledge or consent, contrary to the terms of the agreement and the building approval granted by the Lagos State Government.

The dispute has culminated in an intervention by the Federal High Court, which, on September 29, 2026, restrained Levitikal from selling, transferring, mortgaging or otherwise dealing with the property.

The court also appointed an official receiver to take possession, custody and control of the property pending arbitration.

The landowner’s allegations extend beyond the number and configuration of the apartments to the attempted use of the entire property as security for a loan, the registration of a Power of Attorney, and the marketing and sale of units to members of the public.

She alleged that Ajose and Levitikal attempted to mortgage the entire property to Providus Bank without her knowledge, consent or approval, despite the developer’s entitlement being limited to nine apartments under the joint venture arrangement.

According to her, the proposed transaction exceeded the developer’s contractual rights and sought to encumber the entire property, including her interest in the land and the nine apartments allocated to her.

Another contentious issue concerns a Power of Attorney granted to facilitate the development.

The landowner alleged that Levitikal attempted to use the instrument to assert control over the property beyond the authority granted under the joint venture agreement.

She further alleged that Levitikal and Providus Bank instituted court proceedings seeking to compel the registration of the Power of Attorney without initially joining her as a party.

According to her account, the landowner subsequently intervened in the proceedings to protect her title and interests in the property.

She maintained that the Power of Attorney was granted solely for development purposes and did not confer ownership of the land on Levitikal.

The landowner reiterated that the original agreement expressly provided for 18 three-bedroom apartments, with each party entitled to nine units upon successful completion of the project.

She alleged, however, that Levitikal subsequently partitioned the development into more than 44 apartments comprising one-, two- and three-bedroom units, fundamentally altering the agreed project.

According to her, the changes were made without her knowledge or consent and were contrary to the development approved by the Lagos State Government.

The landowner also alleged that she and her representatives repeatedly sought access to the property and requested copies of the approved building plans to ascertain the nature and extent of the construction.

Between 2023 and 2026, she said, several attempts to inspect the development were frustrated, while formal requests for the approved plans were allegedly not honoured.

She maintained that the lack of access prevented her from adequately monitoring the project and determining whether the construction complied with the joint venture agreement and the relevant approvals.

The dispute has also raised concerns about apartments allegedly marketed and sold to members of the public.

The landowner alleged that Levitikal offered apartments for sale, including units outside the scope of the original joint venture arrangement.

She argued that the transactions raised questions about the developer’s authority to sell the units and the nature of the interests conveyed to purchasers.

The allegations also point to potential financial exposure for buyers who may have committed funds to apartments without being aware of the dispute over the underlying property.

Following what she described as fundamental breaches of the joint venture agreement, the landowner revoked the Power of Attorney and terminated the agreement.

She maintained that the alleged expansion of the development, the attempted mortgage of the entire property and the sale of apartments beyond the developer’s agreed entitlement amounted to breaches of the parties’ arrangement.

The termination further escalated the dispute, which has now resulted in the Federal High Court’s intervention.

The matter has also been referred to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), which, according to the landowner’s account, is investigating Ajose and Levitikal over allegations of fraud relating to the development, financing and sale of apartments on the property.

The Federal High Court’s September 29, 2026, orders restraining further dealings with the property and appointing an official receiver have placed the development under court-supervised control pending arbitration.

The substantive dispute remains centred on the parties’ respective contractual rights, the scope of the Power of Attorney, the extent of the development, the proposed mortgage and the interests of any third-party purchasers.

As Nigeria commemorates its 66th Independence Anniversary, the Executive Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mr. Ola Olukoyede, has reiterated the need for accountable conduct and zero tolerance of corruption by every Nigerian to give value to the ongoing government reforms.

He made the call in Abuja on Thursday, October 1, 2026, in his Independence Anniversary message to Nigerians.

He applauded efforts being made to grow the commanding heights of the polity, describing them as “building blocks of the greater nation we desire.” He called on Nigerians to couple all reform-focused efforts with zero tolerance for corruption.

“At 66, Nigeria has come a long way. Independence has offered us liberty and self-determination. We are also making considerable progress in nation-building. All these efforts are significant. They are the building blocks of the greater nation we desire. Let’s therefore couple all our reform-focused initiatives with zero tolerance for corruption,” he said.

He expressed optimism that Nigeria would fare better and emphasised the greater need to reject corrupt practices in all their forms.

“We cannot be building and allow corrupt practices to vitiate our efforts. Progress only comes with purposeful rejection of compromises. Nigeria will surely get better!” he said.

The National Insurance Commission (NAICOM) has cancelled the certificate of registration of Universal Insurance Plc and appointed a receiver/provisional liquidator to commence the process of winding up the affairs of the insurance company.

The cancellation, which took effect on August 14, 2026, followed the company’s failure to meet the prescribed Minimum Capital Requirement (MCR) applicable to its category of licence within the stipulated compliance period.

In a notice dated August 13, 2026, and addressed to the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Universal Insurance Plc, NAICOM said the cancellation was effected pursuant to the powers conferred on the Commission by the Nigerian Insurance Industry Reform Act (NIIRA) 2025.

The Commission consequently appointed Ogbonna Chukwumerije, a Partner at Pinheiro LP, as Receiver/Provisional Liquidator of the company.

According to the appointment letter dated August 14, 2026, Chukwumerije is required to immediately trace, recover, secure and take over the assets of Universal Insurance Plc.

He is also mandated to collate and settle the liabilities of the company in accordance with the provisions of NIIRA 2025, liaise with NAICOM on information available to the Commission, and submit periodic reports on the progress of the process.

NAICOM said the appointment was subject to the receiver signing a Deed of Appointment and complying with the terms of engagement and extant rules governing receivership and liquidation.

In a separate public notice signed by Chukwumerije and dated August 18, 2026, the receiver formally notified banks, financial institutions, policyholders, creditors, debtors, customers and members of the public of the company’s receivership.

The notice said the receiver had been appointed following the cancellation of Universal Insurance’s licence by NAICOM on account of its failure to meet the applicable Minimum Capital Requirement.

Chukwumerije said that, pursuant to NIIRA 2025 and the terms of his appointment, he was empowered to take over the management and control of Universal Insurance Plc.

He was also authorised to trace, recover, secure and take possession of all assets belonging to the company, as well as take necessary steps for their preservation, protection and realisation.

The receiver is further required to collate, verify and settle the company’s liabilities in accordance with NIIRA 2025, other applicable laws and NAICOM directives.

He is also to liaise with NAICOM on matters relating to the liquidation and winding-up of the company’s affairs and submit periodic reports to the Commission on the progress and administration of the liquidation process.

The development has also triggered restrictions on dealings with the company’s accounts and affairs.

In the public notice, banks, financial institutions, policyholders, creditors, debtors, agents, customers and members of the public were directed to exercise caution and not honour, process, recognise or act upon any instruction, mandate, request, payment direction, withdrawal instruction, transfer instruction or other communication purportedly issued on behalf of Universal Insurance Plc.

Such instructions, the receiver said, would only be recognised where they were issued by him or by a person expressly authorised in writing by him.

The receiver further directed all persons and institutions dealing with the company’s assets, funds, records, policies, claims, liabilities or affairs to verify the authority of anyone purporting to act for or on behalf of Universal Insurance during the liquidation process.

He said only instructions bearing his official seal and stamp as a Legal Practitioner and Receiver/Provisional Liquidator, or instructions issued by persons duly authorised by him in writing, would be recognised in connection with the affairs and liquidation of the company.

The public notice also warned individuals and institutions against acting on instructions purportedly emanating from Universal Insurance Plc, its former officers, directors, employees, agents or representatives unless such instructions had been duly authorised by the receiver.

It further required anyone in possession, custody or control of any asset, fund, document, book, record, policy, claim or other property belonging to or relating to the company to cooperate fully with the receiver and comply with all lawful requests and directives issued in furtherance of the liquidation.

According to the receiver, the notice would take immediate effect and remain in force throughout the liquidation process, subject to any further directive or notice issued by NAICOM or the Receiver/Provisional Liquidator.

He said the receivership process was being conducted with the objective of safeguarding the company’s assets and ensuring that valid claims were properly identified, assessed and dealt with in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

The documents did not disclose the total value of Universal Insurance’s outstanding liabilities, the number of policyholders affected or the value of assets to be recovered.

The development is expected to trigger a process of identifying the company’s assets and liabilities and determining the status of outstanding obligations to policyholders, creditors and other stakeholders.

Universal Insurance Plc’s licence cancellation comes against the backdrop of NAICOM’s enforcement of the minimum capital requirements applicable to insurance companies under the current regulatory framework.

The receiver’s appointment formally transfers responsibility for managing the company’s affairs and dealing with its assets and liabilities to the appointed receiver, subject to the provisions of NIIRA 2025 and the oversight of NAICOM.

The Commission’s appointment letter was signed by Olusegun Ayo Omosehin, Commissioner for Insurance/Chief Executive Officer of NAICOM.

The receiver’s public notice was dated August 18, 2026.