Oniru Property Dispute: Company Fires Back at Occupants Over ‘Locked-In Residents’ Claim

 

LAGOS - The battle over Block 25, Plot 5, Oniru Private Estate, Victoria Island, Lagos, has taken another turn, with the Oniru Chieftaincy Family Property Company Limited (OCFPCPL) hitting back at occupants who accused the company of unlawfully locking residents inside the property.

 

The company has described the allegations circulating in a social media video as **“false and misleading,”** insisting that the controversial property was recovered and sealed by court officials following the enforcement of a valid judgment.

 

The dispute reportedly stems from a legal battle between OCFPCPL and **Ottasona Gardens Limited** over the terms of a sub-lease granted to the company.

 

According to OCFPCPL, the matter was heard by the High Court of Lagos State in **Suit No. LD/6554GCMW/2019 — Oniru Chieftaincy Family Property Company Limited v. Ottasona Gardens Limited.**

 

The court, the company said, delivered judgment on **November 3, 2025**, ruling in favour of OCFPCPL and granting, among other things, forfeiture of the unexpired leasehold interest, recovery of possession and the right of re-entry.

 

The company said the judgment was subsequently enforced on **June 22, 2026**, when court officials took possession of the property on its behalf.

 

‘Court officials sealed the property’

 

OCFPCPL is particularly pushing back against claims that it personally locked residents inside the premises.

 

According to the company, the property was sealed and secured by **officers of the court** while executing the judgment.

 

“It is therefore false and misleading to characterise the execution as an act by OCFPCPL of unlawfully locking residents within the premises,” the company said.

 

The company, however, declined to discuss what happened after the execution, including circumstances surrounding subsequent entry into or occupation of the property, saying those issues are now before the court.

 

Who actually owns the apartments?

 

Another major issue in the unfolding dispute concerns the occupants' claims that they purchased interests in units within the property.

 

OCFPCPL said it was aware of claims by some occupants that they acquired their properties from individuals who themselves purportedly obtained their interests through Ottasona Gardens Limited.

 

But the company said it would not attempt to determine the validity of those transactions through social media.

 

Instead, it said the court would have to determine whether the occupants acquired valid interests in the property.

 

‘Take it to court, not social media’

 

OCFPCPL also revealed that the occupants involved in the controversy have approached the High Court of Lagos State, seeking, among other things, to set aside the earlier judgment and its execution.

 

The company therefore questioned why the same issues were being debated publicly while they were already before the court.

 

“Cases are tried in courts of law, not on social media,” OCFPCPL stated.

 

The company urged all parties to respect the judicial process and allow the court to determine the competing claims.

 

Company warns property buyers

 

OCFPCPL also used the opportunity to remind property buyers that purchasing a house or land comes with a responsibility to conduct proper legal checks.

 

It said prospective buyers should investigate the title to a property, confirm that the person selling it has the legal authority to do so and establish whether there are any superior interests or restrictions affecting the property.

 

The company acknowledged that disputes involving people's homes can attract public sympathy, but maintained that emotional reactions cannot determine legal ownership.

 

“Property rights are determined by title, law and evidence,” it said.

 

 ‘We will say no more’

 

With the matter now before the court, OCFPCPL said it would not engage in an ongoing media battle over the dispute.

 

The company insisted that the June 22 recovery was not an act of self-help, but the enforcement of a subsisting High Court judgment through court officials.

 

It also rejected attempts to portray the company as having acted unlawfully.

 

For now, the dispute appears set to continue in court, where the competing claims over the property, the occupants' interests and the validity of the earlier judgment are expected to be determined.

 

The Oniru Chieftaincy Family Property Company Limited signed the statement.