Lagos Residents Petition Chief Judge Over Alleged Illegal Judgment Execution in Alagbado

Residents of Olusayero Street (formerly Lemon Drive) in the Suberu Oje area of Alagbado, Lagos State, have formally petitioned the Chief Judge of Lagos State. They allege an unlawful and violent enforcement of a court judgment by the Deputy Sheriff’s Office of the State High Court, which resulted in the demolition of several homes. This incident raises critical questions about the proper procedures for executing court judgments, the limits of enforcement powers, and the protection of constitutional property rights in Nigeria.

Introduction: A Dispute Over Enforcement, Not the Judgment Itself

The core of this conflict does not challenge the validity of the original court judgment (Suit No. ID/732M/2010). Instead, it centers on the method and manner in which that judgment was enforced on January 26, 2026. According to the petition drafted by Jimmy Alara & Associates, the enforcement operation involved armed police personnel, alleged thugs, and Deputy Sheriff staff. The residents claim this led to widespread property destruction, violence, and the displacement of families, all under the pretext of carrying out a court order. The petitioners argue the court order did not authorize such a destructive and collective punitive action against the community.

This case serves as a crucial case study for understanding the balance between a successful litigant’s right to the fruits of their judgment and the procedural safeguards that protect all citizens, including judgment debtors, from arbitrary state action. The petition seeks a judicial inquiry into the conduct of the Deputy Sheriff and collaborating state actors, demanding accountability and preventive measures for the future.

Key Points of the Petition and Allegations

The residents’ petition, dated February 13, 2026 (Ref. OC/JA/ROL2/2026), outlines several critical allegations and legal arguments:

1. Discrepancy Between Court Order and Enforcement Action

The petitioners assert that the specific court order in Suit ID/732M/2010 directed the judgment creditor—Nurudeen Adewale and Brothers—to be reinstated to a particular property pending an appeal. The order was specific to this party. The residents argue it did not contain a blanket directive for the demolition of multiple properties belonging to other residents (the “judgment debtors” in the broader dispute). They contend that the proper legal response to any disobedience of the specific reinstatement order would have been to file a separate application for contempt or enforcement, not to authorize a violent, large-scale demolition.

2. Alleged Unlawful Assembly and Use of Force

The operation on January 26, 2026, is described as an invasion involving armed police and “thugs.” The petition alleges this constituted an unlawful assembly and the use of excessive force. The involvement of non-sheriff personnel (alleged thugs) and other state agencies like the Lagos State Taskforce, without a clear legal mandate for their participation in a civil execution, is a central point of contention. This raises serious concerns about the privatization of state enforcement powers and potential collusion.

3. Denial of Authorization by the Judgment Creditor

A significant allegation is that the judgment creditor, Nurudeen Adewale and Brothers, has disclaimed authorizing the violent methods employed. This, if true, suggests the enforcement may have been carried out by overzealous or rogue officials acting beyond their instructions and legal authority, or in concert with other parties with vested interests.

4. Catastrophic Impact on Residents

The petition details the human and financial cost: numerous residents left homeless, significant personal property destroyed, and severe financial distress. This outcome, they argue, is disproportionate to the objective of enforcing a specific civil order and violates the constitutional right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s property under Section 43 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).

5. Call for Investigation and Redress

The petition makes two primary demands: first, an intensive investigation into the actions of the Deputy Sheriff, police, and taskforce officers, with disciplinary action against any found culpable; second, the pursuit of appropriate legal action (likely a civil suit for damages) by the affected residents to seek compensation for their losses.

Background: Legal Framework for Judgment Execution in Nigeria

To understand the gravity of the residents’ allegations, one must grasp the standard legal procedures for executing a judgment in Nigeria, governed primarily by the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act and the relevant High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules.

The Role of the Sheriff/Deputy Sheriff

The Deputy Sheriff is a court officer empowered to execute court processes, including writs of execution. Their authority is derived strictly from the terms of the writ issued by the court. The execution must be conducted in a “reasonable and orderly manner,” respecting the rights of all parties. The Sheriff’s core duty is to give effect to the court’s order, not to expand upon it or employ methods not sanctioned by law.

Types of Execution and Their Limits

For a judgment involving property, common methods of execution include:

• Writ of Possession: To recover land or premises. This typically involves the sheriff physically removing the current occupant (the judgment debtor) and placing the judgment creditor in possession. It is a targeted process against specific parties and properties.
• Writ of Delivery: For the recovery of specific goods.
• Writ of Fieri Facias: To seize and sell the debtor’s property to satisfy a monetary judgment.

Key Principle: An execution warrant is not a license for general property destruction. It is a specific tool for a specific purpose. Demolition as a form of execution is extremely rare and would require an explicit court order authorizing such a drastic remedy, often in cases of illegal structures or where the structure itself is the subject of the dispute (e.g., an encroachment).

Procedural Safeguards

The law provides safeguards. A judgment debtor can apply to the court to suspend or vary the execution, especially if they have filed an appeal (which the residents mention). The sheriff is expected to verify the scope of the writ and the identities of the parties involved. Involving police is permissible for maintaining peace during a volatile execution, but the police role is supportive, not directive. The primary command and control remain with the court officer.

Analysis: Potential Legal Violations and Implications

If the residents’ account is accurate, several serious legal and constitutional breaches may have occurred:

1. Ultra Vires Execution

The Deputy Sheriff’s actions would be ultra vires (beyond their powers) if they executed a demolition not warranted by the writ. The sheriff would be acting without judicial authority, converting a civil process into a tool for private vengeance or mass punishment. This is a fundamental abuse of process.

2. Complicity in Tortious Acts (Trespass, Conversion, Destruction of Property)

The demolition of homes belonging to individuals not named in the specific order constitutes trespass to land and conversion (interference with goods). The state actors involved could be held personally and vicariously liable. The state (Lagos State Government) could also face liability under the principle of respondeat superior if the officers were acting within the scope of their employment, even if wrongfully.

3. Potential Criminal Liability

While the petition focuses on administrative and civil redress, the actions could attract criminal charges:

• Criminal Damage: Under the Criminal Code Act (applicable in Lagos), willful destruction of property.
• Conspiracy: If evidence supports collusion between the sheriff, police, taskforce, and the alleged “thugs.”
• Abuse of Office: By any public officer who knowingly misused their authority.
• Rioting/Unlawful Assembly: If the group acted with a common purpose to cause violence and destruction.

4. Constitutional Violations

The action potentially violates:

• Section 43 (Right to Acquire and Own Property): The right to own property in Nigeria includes the right not to be deprived of it except by due process of law.
• Section 34 (Right to Dignity): Rendering families homeless and causing severe distress can be argued to constitute an affront to human dignity.
• Section 33 (Right to Life): In extreme cases of violent enforcement, the right to life could be implicated.

5. Implications for Rule of Law and Judicial Authority

Such incidents severely undermine public confidence in the judiciary and law enforcement. It portrays the court’s process as a tool for oppression rather than justice. The Chief Judge, as the head of the state judiciary and the administrative authority over the Sheriff’s Office, has a direct interest in investigating this to preserve the integrity of the courts.

Practical Advice for Citizens Facing Similar Situations

Based on this incident, here is actionable advice for communities and individuals:

If You Receive Notice of an Impending Enforcement:

1. Verify the Writ: Immediately obtain a certified copy of the court writ or order from the court registry. Understand its precise terms: which property, which parties, what specific action is authorized.
2. Seek Emergency Legal Counsel: Consult a lawyer immediately. If an appeal is pending or you have new evidence, your lawyer can file an application to stay (suspend) the execution.
3. Document Everything: Take videos, photos, and written records of any communication. Note the names, badge numbers, and affiliations of all officials present.
4. Do Not Physically Confront: Avoid physical resistance, which can lead to injury and criminal charges. The focus should be on legal obstruction and documentation.
5. Report to the Chief Judge/Court Administrator: If you believe the sheriff is exceeding authority, file a formal petition with the Chief Judge or the head of the Sheriff’s Office before the enforcement date, citing the specific discrepancies.

If an Unlawful Enforcement Occurs:

1. Preserve the Scene: Do not clear debris if possible. It is evidence.
2. Gather Evidence: Collect witness statements, medical reports for injuries, and an inventory of destroyed property with estimated values.
3. File a Police Report: Report the incident as criminal damage, assault, and unlawful assembly. Obtain a dated copy of the report.
4. Initiate the Petition Process: As done here, petition the Chief Judge for a formal investigation into the Sheriff’s conduct.
5. Consider a Civil Suit: With your lawyer, prepare a suit for damages against the individuals and state agencies involved, as well as possibly the judgment creditor if they instigated the excesses.

For Community Leaders:

• Establish a legal aid fund or partnership with pro bono lawyers for such emergencies.
• Conduct community awareness sessions on basic rights during judgment enforcement.
• Maintain a registry of all court cases affecting community members to anticipate potential enforcement actions.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q1: Can a Deputy Sheriff demolish my house without a specific court order for demolition?

A: No. The Deputy Sheriff’s authority is limited to the exact terms of the writ of execution. A writ for possession allows for eviction, not demolition. Demolition requires a separate, explicit court order, usually obtained after a specific legal proceeding proving the structure is illegal or must be removed for a compelling reason. Executing a demolition without such an order is illegal.

Q2: Who is liable for the damages—the judgment creditor, the sheriff, or the police?

A: Liability can be joint and several. The sheriff and their assistants are primarily liable for acting ultra vires. The police can be liable if they actively participated or failed in their duty to prevent an unlawful assembly and destruction. The judgment creditor can be held liable if they instigated, authorized, or were complicit in the illegal methods. A civil court will determine the apportionment of liability based on evidence of each party’s role.

Q3: What is the difference between a “writ of possession” and a “writ of demolition”?

A: A writ of possession is the most common. It commands the sheriff to place the judgment creditor in physical possession of the land or building by removing the current occupant(s). The structure remains intact. A writ of demolition (or an order for demolition) is a specific court directive ordering the physical destruction of a building. It is an extraordinary remedy granted in very limited circumstances, such as when a building is a public nuisance, erected in contravention of a mandatory injunction, or is fundamentally illegal (e.g., on a road reserve). The two are not interchangeable.

Q4: Can the police legally assist a sheriff in a civil enforcement action?

A: Yes, but in a strictly supportive role. The police may be requested by the sheriff to maintain public peace and order, prevent a breach of the peace, or protect the sheriff and parties from violence. However, the police do not take command of the operation. They must not participate in the actual civil act (e.g., breaking down doors, seizing property) unless it is necessary to prevent a crime in their presence. Their primary duty is to uphold the law, which includes preventing illegal actions by any party, including the sheriff.

Q5: What constitutional remedies are available to the residents?

A: The residents can file a fundamental rights enforcement action under Section 46(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), applying to the High Court for redress for the violation of their rights to property (Section 43) and dignity (Section 34). This is a separate, expedited procedure. Furthermore, they can seek damages in a civil tort claim (trespass, conversion, negligence) which, while not a “constitutional remedy” per se, enforces the same underlying rights through common law.

Conclusion: The Imperative for Accountability and Procedural Justice

The petition by the residents of Olusayero Street is more than a complaint about a single, violent incident. It is a fundamental challenge to the rule of law in the context of civil dispute resolution. The enforcement of a court’s judgment is a necessary power of the state, but it is a power that must be exercised with precision, proportionality, and strict adherence to the judicial mandate. When enforcement agencies transform a targeted civil order into a carte blanche for mass destruction, they do not serve justice; they perpetrate a new injustice.

The Lagos State Chief Judge now holds a pivotal responsibility. A transparent, independent, and thorough investigation is essential to determine the chain of command, the source of the erroneous belief that a demolition was authorized, and the degree of collusion, if any, between court officials, police, and private actors. The outcome will signal whether the system has mechanisms to correct its own excesses or if such abuses will remain a tool for the powerful