A London tribunal has blocked an audacious move by Mike Ozekhome, a prominent Nigerian lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, to take ownership of a house in North London.
The judgment, delivered on 11 September by Judge Ewan Paton of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), brings to an end nearly four years of extraordinary courtroom drama, marked by allegations of forgery, impersonation, phantom identities, and conflicting testimonies.
|
|
In August 2021, Mr Ozekhome applied to transfer the property at 79 Randall Avenue, Neasden, into his name. He claimed it was a gift from a man who presented himself as Mr Tali Shani, said to be the property’s owner, in appreciation for legal services.
But the application was challenged in September 2022 by Westfields Solicitors, claiming to represent “Ms Tali Shani,” who insisted she was the registered owner of the property since 1993. She claimed that she had never signed any transfer, and was “outraged” by Mr Ozekhome’s application.
|
|
|
|---|
At the heart of the storm was the late General Jeremiah Useni, a powerful Nigerian military officer and one-time Minister of the Federal Capital Territory under Military Head of State, Sani Abacha.
In its verdict, the tribunal held that the case was built on a network of fraud, impersonation, and forged documents, but concluded that Mr Useni was the genuine purchaser of the property back in 1993, even though he did it with a fictitious name.
Claims of “two owners’’
In his application, Mr Ozekhome relied on a man who presented himself as Tali Shani, a Nigerian businessman said to have owned the UK property since 1993.
The man produced a Nigerian passport, claimed to have bought the property at age 20 with money from family cattle businesses, and later transferred it to Mr Ozekhome out of gratitude for legal services.
In contrast, Ms Shani insisted she bought the house in her “hey days” and accused Mr Ozekhome of trying to seize it using impostors.
Ms Shani never appeared before the tribunal, despite multiple adjournments. In 2024, her lawyers filed medical letters claiming she was too ill to testify, and eventually reported that she had died in October 2024, attaching a death certificate from Nigeria.
Investigations later revealed that documents submitted by both sides — including identity cards, utility bills, and a National Identification Number — were forged.
The tribunal ruled that neither Mr Ozekhome nor the supposed woman named Ms Shani was the true owner of the property at 79 Randall Avenue.
Witness contradictions and bizarre claims
The court rejected testimonies from supposed relatives of Ms Shani. One witness, Ayodele Damola, had introduced himself as Ms Shani’s biological son, while Anakwe Obasi introduced himself as her cousin.
Both appeared in court with documents, but the judge described their evidence as riddled with contradictions and lacking the most basic proof of identity.
Neither could present a single family photograph, proof of her residence in Jos, or verifiable links to the late General Jeremiah Useni, whose name surfaced repeatedly in their stories, the judge said.
Mr Obasi told the court that his cousin, Ms Shani, had a long relationship with Mr Useni and that she once gave him money in the early 1990s to buy a London property on her behalf. He admitted, however, that he had never taken a photograph with his cousin, the general, or Mr Damola. When pressed, he said he was “not a photogenic person.”
The witness further alleged that an official photographer had captured Ms Shani’s funeral, but the photographer was “killed by a bandit two days later.”
Meanwhile, in Mr Damola’s affidavit, he claimed that Ms Shani died in a road accident along the Jos-Abuja expressway, while Mr Obasi said she was terminally ill and died in a Lagos hospital.
Mr Damola also testified that Ms Shani purchased the London property in 1993 and later rented it out through Mr Useni. Mr Damola also alleged that the transfer of the property to lawyer Mike Ozekhome was repayment for a N54 million loan to the general during an election campaign.
Discrepancies in death records further weakened their case.
A death certificate claimed Ms Shani died in hospital, but an affidavit filed in Abuja placed her death in a car crash on 3 October 2023. An obituary notice advertised a thanksgiving service on “Sunday, 30 November 2024” — a date that did not exist, since 30 November fell on a Saturday that year.
Nigerian officials expose forgeries
Expert witnesses from Nigerian institutions discredit the documents presented to prove Ms Shani’s existence.
The head of legal services at the National Identity Management Commission (NIMC), Festus Esangbedo, testified that the National Identification Number (NIN) slip tendered in her name was “fake, fraudulent and not authorised.”
His investigation found that although a NIN was issued on 23 June 2024, it was generated using loopholes meant for amputees to bypass fingerprinting, and the picture attached to the NIN has some distinct irregularities and does not comply with ICAO standards. The registration was even carried out remotely from Monaco — a clear violation of procedure, Mr Esangbedo told the court.
Police officer Ibrahim Sini of the Force Intelligence Department traced a mobile bill allegedly belonging to Ms Shani back to its real source, confirming another layer of fraud.
‘Ms Shani never existed’
In his ruling, the judge dismissed the testimonies of Messrs Damola and Obasi as fabrications.
“I do not accept that ‘she’ was ever a real living person,” the judge declared. “I do not accept that ‘she’ therefore died, whether in hospital or in a mysterious car accident. I certainly do not accept that ‘she’ purchased this property in London in 1993. Nor do I accept that Mr Ayodele Damola is ‘her’ son, or that Mr Anukwe Obasi is ‘her’ cousin.”
Concluding that the entire case was built on “forgery and deception,” the tribunal struck out the claims, describing them as an abuse of judicial process.
“The case has been pursued by others in the name of a person who never existed,” the judge ruled.
Ozekhome’s case collapses
Mr Ozekhome told the court that the London property was transferred to him in 2021 by a Mr Shani, whom he claimed was the true owner. According to him, although the late Mr Useni had registered the house under the name of “Ms Tali Shani,” it was actually purchased and held by Mr Shani since 1993.
He admitted, however, that he never knew Mr Shani until January 2019, more than two decades after the disputed purchase, and had no personal knowledge of how the property was acquired or managed in earlier years.
His confidence in the claim, he explained, stemmed largely from his long-standing relationship with Mr Useni, whom he described as both a client and friend for over 20 years.
The Nigerian lawyer told the tribunal that after being introduced to Mr Shani in 2019, he undertook several legal services for him — ranging from advisory work to court appearances — and that the property was later gifted to him in 2021 as an expression of gratitude.
He described Mr Shani as a wealthy farmer and businessman, engaged in cattle, groundnuts, mangoes, and real estate, and said Mr Shani came to see him as a father figure.
Mr Ozekhome declined to provide evidence of the alleged legal work, citing client confidentiality. He also denied paying the £500,000 mentioned in Mr Shani’s earlier statements, insisting that the transfer was entirely gratuitous and that the value of his professional services exceeded any monetary consideration.
However, the tribunal rejected Mr Ozekhome’s account. “Mr. Tali Shani… did not purchase this property himself in 1993, and so had no title of his own to pass to the respondent,” the judge said.
The court also found that Mr Ozekhome’s defence, supported by his son, amounted to a “contrived story… invented in an attempt to provide a plausible reason” for the 2021 transfer.
The tribunal therefore concluded that Mr Shani had no connection whatsoever to the 1993 purchase, and that the story advanced by Mr Ozekhome could not stand.
Tribunal’s verdict on the real owner of the house
Judge Paton ruled that the house was secretly bought in 1993 by the late General Jeremiah Useni, the former Nigerian Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, using a false identity.
Mr Useni, who died in France in January 2025, was a very influential member of the Sani Abacha government and was even in contention to be head of state following Abacha’s death in June 1998.
READ ALSO: Peter Obi responds to allegations of working for Abacha, publishes evidence
The tribunal examined conflicting testimonies, including evidence from Nigerian police and identity authorities, as well as oral testimony from General Useni himself before his death in January 2025.
Before his death, Mr Useni appeared before the court through a video link in 2024. Contrary to Mr Ozekhome’s defence, Mr Useni told the court plainly: “I owned it. I bought the property. It is my property.”
He admitted registering the house in another person’s name but denied ever knowing a “Ms. Tali Shani.”
Documents before the tribunal confirmed that the 1993 purchase was made under the false name Philips Bincan, and that Mr Useni had a pattern of using false or “coded” names, such as “Tim Shani,” for bank accounts and companies — a practice already established by the Royal Court of Jersey in 2022.
The court held that the similarity of names and timing strongly supported the finding that Mr Useni deliberately used the false name “Tali Shani” to register the property.
The tribunal found Mr Useni’s evidence consistent with purchase records, unlike the shifting accounts of the Shanis or Mr Ozekhome. The court also ruled that since “Mr Tali Shani” had no legal title to transfer the London property to Mr Ozekhome, the chief land registrar must cancel Mr Ozekhome’s application to be registered as proprietor.
Finally, the court held that since Mr Useni is deceased, ownership now rests with whoever obtains probate of his English assets.
“General Useni is now deceased, so on my findings, his title and interest in this property would vest in such persons as obtained a grant of probate or administration in respect of his English assets. Although not strictly bound by my findings (since they were not parties to the case), it is a matter for any such persons, on their own advice, what, if any, steps they take in this regard,” the judge said.
