Justice T. B. Summonu of the High Court of Lagos State, sitting at Court 66, the Commercial Courthouse, Tapa, Lagos, has dismissed a preliminary objection filed by a real estate firm, DNJ Properties and Investment Limited, against a suit filed against it by a subscriber, Olufemi Odiri over alleged breach of contract.
Justice Summonu dismissed the company’s preliminary objection on Friday, for lacking in merit.
The Subscriber, Olufemi Odiri, through his lawyer, Ademola Adefolaju, sued the firm in LD/ADR/5956/2025 for alleged failure to deliver a property paid for, despite demands.
In the suit, Odiri is seeking a declaration that under the Contract of Sale between the claimant and defendant, the defendant is obliged to allocate one unit of a two bedrooms on plots 14/16, Eru Ifa Street, Ikate, Lekki, having received full payment.
He is praying for an order compelling the defendant to allocate the apartment to him as stipulated in the agreement.
Alternatively, the plaintiff seeks an order directing the defendant to pay N200 million, representing the market value of the apartment; N5 million as cost of prosecuting the suit, pre-judgment interest of 21 per cent per annum until judgment and post-judgment interest of 19 per cent per annum until final payment.
In his statement of claim, Odiri said DNJ entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with Michael Oniyitan, original owner of the land, to develop 13 units of two bedrooms, two units of three bedrooms with BQ, and two maisonettes.
He claimed that in 2023, he was introduced to the project by Kolawole Olorode and Niyi Olaniyanu, and was assured approvals had been obtained.
Based on this, he subscribed to one unit for N50 million, paid in full into DNJ Properties’ account at FCMB.
However, Odiri alleged that as of March, the firm had yet to begin construction.
He said he found that the company had put up the land for sale, contrary to agreement.
The claimant contends that the defendant intends to dispose of the property.
He argued that by the principle of nemo dat quod non habet (no one gives what they do not have), the defendant had no legal right to collect money for a non-existent property.
Odiri claimed he has suffered psychological and emotional trauma as a result.
But instead of the real estate firm to file a defence to the suit, it opted for Preliminary Objection, which was equally countered by the subscriber.
DNJ Properties and Investment Limited in its PO filed by its lawyer, Mutiu Akinrinmade, prayed the court for an Order of the Court striking out Odiri’s suit for being, frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of the process of the Court and the Court thereby lacks the jurisdiction to entertain it.
The company said it’s preliminary objection was pursuant to Order 17 Rule 15 High Court Rules 2019 and under the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
DNJ Properties and Investment Limited also supported its Preliminary Objection with a four-paragraph affidavit in support deposed to by one Blessing Obika, the law firm of the Firm’s counsel, alongside a written address and some documents.
But the subscriber’s lawyer, Barrister Ademola Adefolaju, in his counter affidavit to the preliminary objection deposed to by Adeboye Kayode, denied all the averments in the Firm’s PO, and pleaded with the court to dismiss it with substantial cost.
Specifically, the lawyer to the claimant in his counter affidavit made the following averments: “that by virtue of the Contract of Sale of One unit 2 Bedroom Apartment executed between the Claimant and the Defendant herein, the equitable rights and/or legal interest of the Defendant to dispose the subject matter of this suit is never in doubt. Attached and marked as exhibit Al is copy of the Contract of Sale Agreement between the parties.
“That under the contract of Sale executed between the parties, particularly clause 6 of the Contract, the Defendant/Applicant herein covenants among other thing to indemnify the purchaser (the claimant herein) up to the current market price of the subject matter if the delivery of the property cannot be made possible within the timeframe agreed under the Contract.
“That the issue of delivery of the property by the defendant/applicant to the claimant/respondent herein is not contingent upon the consent of the original landowner to the sale under the contract of sale executed between the parties……
“That the defendant has never made any attempt towards amicable settlement of the dispute on the subject matter prior to the institution of this case by the claimant/respondent in Court.
“That throughout the time Claimant/Respondent was expecting delivery of the subject matter of this suit, no information whatsoever as regard change of date or any unforeseen circumstances that could have prevented the Defendant to commence construction was communicated to the Claimant/Applicant, this is against the background that the 18 month’s timeline for delivery of the One Unit 2 Bedroom Apartment to the Claimant lapse on the 29th of May, 2025.
“That from the available facts and discussions which the defendant/applicant has being having with the claimant/respondent after the institution of this suit in court and service of same on the Defendant, it can only be said that the Defendant/Applicant acted fraudulently and misrepresented material facts which prompted the Claimant/Respondent in purchasing the property in the first place……
“That he knows of a fact that the current market value of the One Unit 2 Bedroom Apartment at Plot 14 & 16 Eru Ifa Street, Ikate, Lekki, Lagos is not less than the sum of N200 million only.
“That the claim of the defendant/applicant about the original landowner withdrawing from the Joint Venture Agreement pursuant to which the Defendant sold the property to the Claimant and its inability to deliver the property to the Claimant is mischievous and not true as the Defendant has never shown any letter to that effect.
“That this court owe the duty to determine this case on its merit irrespective of the reliefs sought by the Claimant/Respondent in his originating process. And that it will serve the interest of justice to dismiss the instant application and hear the substantive suit on the merit.”
Justice Bashiru after legally perusing parties’ submissions and all legal authorites cited, dismissed DNJ Properties and Investment Limited’s preliminary objection for being frivolous and lacking in merit.
The judge thereafter adjourned to October 28 2026, for further hearing.