Magodo dispute: Lagos approaches s’court as judgment creditors ‘split’ over settlement plan

The Lagos government says it has approached the supreme court for “guidance and clarification” over the settlement plan for Shangisha landlords.

The Shangisha landlords are the judgment creditors who have laid claim to the land where the Magodo estate phase two is located.

The supreme court is said to have ordered Lagos to give some landlords 549 plots of land as a “matter of first priority” after their properties were demolished at Shangisha.

In December 2021, a team of officers escorted bulldozers to the estate but residents of the area protested the move, and the police withdrew from the estate after the state intervened.

On January 4, 2022, there was another protest at the estate over a renewed threat of demolition and police invasion, after which Babajide Sanwo-Olu, Lagos governor, visited the area and promised that the issue would be resolved amicably.

On January 5, the state announced that it had reached an agreement with the judgment creditors on a settlement plan.

However, giving an update on the matter in a statement issued on Friday, Gbenga Omotoso, Lagos commissioner for information, said the judgment creditors failed to reach an agreement on how the certificates of occupancy would be distributed.

According to the statement, the Shangisha landlords failed to reach a consensus on the matter, which led the state to approach the supreme court.

“Following the intervention of Lagos State Governor, Babajide Sanwo-Olu, officials of the State Government and representatives of the Shangisha Landlords Association (the judgment creditors) held a series of meetings at which both parties explored the possibility of complying with the judgment of the Supreme Court,” the statement reads.

“At the said meetings two issues arose: There was a serious division among the judgment creditors as to who controlled or had the right to represent the Association; and the demand by the judgment creditors that a single global certificate of occupancy should be issued in the name of the Association as opposed to the position of the State Government that each of the 549 members of the Association would be given allotment letters individually.

“Given the sharp divide between the two factions of the judgment creditors on who has authority to represent the Association and the disagreement regarding whom the certificate of occupancy should be issued (collectively or individually), the State Government has approached the Supreme Court to seek further directives and clarifications on both issues.

“The judgment creditors have been served with the application.

“The State Government, however, wishes to reiterate its commitment to complying with the judgment of the Supreme Court once these two issues are resolved.”