An Ogun High Court has nullified a quit notice issued against former governor Gbenga Daniel’s properties, ruling the Abiodun government violated due process in enforcement actions
Court Halts Ogun Govt Action on Gbenga Daniel’s Properties, Declares Quit Notice Illegal
An Ogun High Court has nullified a quit notice issued against former governor Gbenga Daniel’s properties, ruling the Abiodun government violated due process in enforcement actions.
A High Court in Ogun State has struck down a controversial quit notice issued against properties linked to former governor and serving senator, Otunba Gbenga Daniel, ruling that the state government failed to follow due process.
Delivering judgment in a case rooted in a planning compliance dispute in Sagamu, the court declared the notice null and void, holding that enforcement officials acted outside the bounds of their statutory authority.
The dispute began in August 2025, when Ogun State planning authorities targeted two properties associated with Daniel and his wife—Asoludero Court, his private residence, and Conference Hotels Limited along with its annex. Officials issued notices of contravention, followed almost immediately by a quit notice and demolition threats, citing alleged planning violations and permit irregularities.
Daniel pushed back, describing the move as politically driven. He maintained that the properties were covered by valid Certificates of Occupancy that predate the current planning framework. His legal team swiftly secured an ex-parte order restraining the government from further action pending the outcome of the suit.
At the heart of the case was a critical legal question: Did the Ogun State Government follow its own enforcement procedures before issuing the quit notice?
Under existing planning laws, enforcement must follow a clearly defined sequence—starting with a notice of contravention, allowing time for compliance, and progressing through staged enforcement steps before any final action. Daniel’s legal team argued that the government bypassed these safeguards, opting instead for immediate coercive measures.
The court agreed.
In a decisive ruling, the judge held that these procedures are mandatory, not optional, and that any deviation renders enforcement actions invalid. The court concluded that the state government acted ultra vires—beyond its legal powers—by failing to adhere to the statutory process, thereby voiding the quit notice from the outset.
The Ogun State Government had defended its actions as part of a broader land audit and urban renewal drive, insisting that enforcement was applied uniformly and lawfully.
However, the court’s verdict underscored a key principle: actions taken in the name of the law must themselves comply with the law.
“It will be the most fairness decision to be taken if the opportunity goes to the rural. If one section dominates for 24 years out of 28, I think it won’t be too much to ask for a fair share for the other side.”
Beyond the immediate dispute, the ruling is expected to have wider implications. The case had already attracted attention due to the profile of the parties involved, raising concerns about potential selective enforcement of planning laws.
Legal analysts say the judgment reinforces a core governance standard—that regulatory authority cannot be exercised through procedural shortcuts, regardless of political context.
For Ogun State, the decision may trigger deeper scrutiny of its ongoing land audit programme, with questions emerging over whether similar enforcement actions across the state complied with the legal framework now affirmed by the court.
