Lagos firm drags Godmade Homes, owner Kuyebi to court over Ikoyi property dispute

A Lagos-based company, Two Aprils Limited, has taken legal action against property developer Godmade Homes Limited and its owner, Ayoolanrewaju Kuyebi, over a disputed luxury property in Osborne Foreshore II, Ikoyi, Lagos.

Join the Premium Times WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.

Open in WhatsApp

Justice Rosul Oriyomi Olukolu of the Tapa Division of the High Court of Lagos State has granted interim injunctions restraining the developer and its principal from dealing with the property pending the determination of the suit.

The orders were granted on 4 March 2026, following an ex parte application filed by counsel to the claimant, AbdulHakeemAdio, in suit number LD/853CM/2026.

The application was brought pursuant to Order 43 Rule 1 and Order 9 Rule 5 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019, as well as Sections 10, 13 and 18(1)–(4) of the High Court Law of Lagos State 2003, and under the court’s inherent jurisdiction preserved by Section 6(6)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

In granting the reliefs sought by the claimant, Justice Olukolu held that the court had considered the 12-paragraph affidavit and 29-paragraph affidavit of urgency filed on 2 March 2026, together with the submissions of the applicant’s counsel.

The court consequently issued an interim order restraining Godmade Homes Limited and Ayoolanrewaju Kuyebi—whether acting directly or through affiliates, directors, agents, servants, assigns, or related entities—from disturbing, interfering with, transferring, selling, assigning, or otherwise dealing with the disputed property.

The property in question is a five-bedroom terrace duplex with a one-bedroom boys’ quarters located at Esplanade 6 (Former EGC5), Iroko Close, Osborne Foreshore II, Ikoyi, Lagos—specifically Unit 1, the first unit from the entrance.

Stay Ahead with Premium Times

Add as a preferred source on Google

The court also granted the claimant leave, with the assistance of the Sheriff of the court, to take possession of the property or alternatively mark it with the inscription “Subject of Litigation” pending the hearing and determination of the substantive motion.

According to court filings, Godmade Homes had presented itself as a reputable real estate development company with the capacity to deliver luxury five-bedroom terrace duplexes with one-bedroom boys’ quarters at the Osborne Foreshore II development through an off-plan sales arrangement.

Relying on this representation, Two Aprils Limited agreed to purchase one unit of the development, under a Contract of Sale executed on 4 November 2022, for a total purchase price of ₦295.5 million.

Under the terms of the agreement, the developer was required to deliver the completed property on or before 31 July 2024, in accordance with Clause 2(a)(viii) of the contract.

Court documents indicate that the claimant paid ₦247.26 million toward the purchase price despite alleged delays in the construction and delivery of the property.

In furtherance of the transaction, Godmade Homes subsequently issued a Letter of Allocation dated 21 May 2024, formally assigning the property to the claimant.

However, the claimant alleges that the developer repeatedly shifted the delivery timeline and breached several provisions of the agreement.

The dispute escalated when the solicitors to Godmade Homes, in a letter dated 16 February 2026, reportedly indicated that their client reserved the right to resell the property to another buyer, while demanding that the claimant pay a revised purchase price of ₦450 million—representing a unilateral increase from the original contract sum.

Two Aprils Limited rejected the demand through its solicitors in a letter dated 19 February 2026, insisting that the proposed price increase violated the terms of the binding agreement.

The claimant further alleged that the developer subsequently issued another letter dated 23 February 2026, purporting to unilaterally terminate the contract of sale without sufficient justification.

Fearing that the property could be resold to another purchaser, the claimant approached the court for urgent relief.

Satisfied that the circumstances warranted immediate intervention, the court granted the interim orders restraining the defendants from taking further steps regarding the property pending the hearing of the substantive application.

The matter has been adjourned to 2 April 2026, for further proceedings.