Two men acquitted of land theft charges

The Lagos State High Court sitting in Ikeja has discharged and acquitted two men, Lawal Ige and Ajiboye Ayinla Iroko, who were standing trial over alleged conspiracy, stealing and forgery relating to a 10.503-hectare parcel of land in Alimosho Local Government Area of the state.

Justice Olubunmi Abike-Fadipe, in her judgment delivered on, September 17, 2026, held that the prosecution failed to prove the six-count charge against the defendants beyond reasonable doubt.

Ige was charged with all six counts, while Iroko faced counts one to four and six.

The defendants, Lawal Ige and Ajiboye Ayinla Iroko, were arraigned on October 12, 2023, while Ige pleaded not guilty to all six counts, and Iroko pleaded not guilty to counts one to four and six.

The charges included conspiracy to steal land, stealing, forgery, use of false documents and allegedly procuring the execution of documents by false pretences.

The prosecution alleged that the disputed land at Igando Town, near Idowu-Egba Village, belonged to Prince Osibote, who had reported the matter to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.

The trial commenced on February 1, 2024, with the prosecution calling three witnesses before closing its case on December 12, 2024.

The two defendants subsequently testified as the sole witnesses in their respective defences.

The trial ended on February 26, 2026, after which the court directed the parties to file and exchange their final written addresses.

The parties adopted their respective final addresses on June 30, 2026.

Chimaobi Adiele adopted the written address and reply on points of law filed on behalf of Iroko, while Bassey N. Bassey, adopted Ige’s written address and reply on points of law.

The prosecution’s final written address was adopted by Ayanfe Ogunsina.

However, after reviewing the evidence of the three EFCC’s prosecution witnesses and the defence, the judge held that the prosecution failed to establish that Osibote owned the land allegedly stolen by the defendants.

In the certified true copy of the judgement, Justice Abike-Fadipe said the prosecution did not tender any title document establishing Osibote’s ownership of the disputed property.

She said, “PW1 has not established his ownership over the land alleged to have been stolen by the defendants in any of these five ways to the satisfaction of this court.”

The judge further noted discrepancies in the description and location of the land, observing that while Osibote described his property as being in Alimosho/Egbeda, the land sold to Iroko was described as being at Abule Onilu/Igando.

She held that the prosecution failed to establish that both descriptions referred to the same parcel of land.

“Consequently, in the absence of proof of ownership of the land allegedly stolen residing in PW1, the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden of proof on it beyond reasonable doubt,” the judge held.

On the conspiracy charge, the court found that the prosecution failed to establish any meeting of minds between the defendants.

The judge observed that one prosecution witness, Kamoru Yusuf Olatunji, testified that he bought the land from Ige but expressly stated that Iroko did not collect money from him or show him the property.

Justice Abike-Fadipe also rejected the prosecution’s reliance on transactions involving Iroko’s account as sufficient evidence of conspiracy, noting that the transactions were consistent with his explanation.

The court also noted that Balogun Oluwadare Frederick, whose transactions were central to part of the prosecution’s case, was not called as a witness.

The judge said, “I am therefore unable to find that the prosecution has proved the first count alleged against the defendants as proved beyond reasonable doubt.”

She added that Ige’s statement could not, without more, establish a conspiracy involving Iroko.

“Consequently, the statement made by the 1st defendant in exhibit P10c cannot be basis for the finding of conspiracy,” she held.

• How lawyer converted my Ikorodu house into factory – ACP
• Truck operators seek reforms to Lekki call-up system
• Lagos offers 50% scholarship for LASU diaspora studies programme

The court also rejected part of the evidence relied upon by the prosecution as hearsay.

Justice Abike-Fadipe held that evidence given by Osibote concerning what a lawyer, identified as Barrister O. Adeniji, allegedly told him about purchasing the land from Ige was inadmissible.

“It is therefore inadmissible in evidence,” the judge held.

On the forgery counts, the court found that the prosecution failed to call the relevant officials from the Lagos State Surveyor-General’s Office and Lands Bureau who could have authenticated the documents and the correspondence relied upon to establish that the documents were forged.

The judge held that the letters the prosecution relied on amounted to documentary hearsay.

“Exhibits P6b and P7b amount to documentary hearsay and therefore fall short of credible and reliable evidence to sustain the charges against the defendants beyond reasonable doubt,” she held.

Justice Abike-Fadipe stressed that forgery was a serious criminal allegation which required the prosecution to present reliable evidence.

“Forgery is a grave allegation and being a criminal offence, nothing must be left to chance by the prosecution to secure a conviction,” she said.

The court similarly found that the prosecution failed to establish the allegation that the defendants procured the execution of the disputed documents by false pretences.

The prosecution had relied on the alleged involvement of a surveyor,

Simeon Abioye, but the surveyor was not called to testify.

The judge held that there was no evidence that either defendant asked Abioye to fabricate or execute the documents.

“This is not just hearsay evidence; it is no evidence at all!” Justice Abike-Fadipe declared.

The court also observed that a civil dispute concerning ownership of the land was already pending before the criminal proceedings were instituted.

The judge held that the criminal case appeared to have been used to attempt to determine the ownership dispute through the criminal court.

“What the prosecution is seeking to achieve in this proceeding is for this Court to find that PW1 owns the land and thereby settle the matter of ownership once and for all. In my humble view, that amounts to abuse of the processes of this Court,” she held.

She added, “What the prosecution is seeking here is to obtain judgement through the back door to declare PW1 the owner of land which is in contest in another Court within the same jurisdiction.”

Justice Abike-Fadipe consequently cautioned against using prosecuting agencies to pursue personal disputes.

“It is incumbent upon a prosecutor to ensure that prosecuting agencies are not used as a vendetta against perceived enemies of a petitioner,” she said.

The judge noted that the case had lasted for more than three years and that the defendants had spent months in detention before the trial.

“This matter has been in court for over three years, and the defendants were held in detention for months prior to that time,” she said.

Justice Abike-Fadipe concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges with cogent, credible and reliable evidence.

“In conclusion, I hold that the prosecution has not proved the charges against the defendants beyond reasonable doubt by adducing cogent, credible, believable or credible evidence against the defendants,” she held.

The judge consequently discharged and acquitted the defendants of the charges.