By Esther Onyegbula
The human cost of the prolonged demolition dispute involving residents of Okokomaiko, Church Estate 1, Church Estate 2, Igbenyadu Community and Jubilee Estate came into sharp focus when an elderly retiree collapsed in the courtroom during proceedings before a Federal High Court in Lagos.
The retiree, identified as one of the affected homeowners, reportedly slumped in the full view of the presiding judge on September 24, 2026, leaving lawyers, litigants and others in the courtroom scrambling to save his life.
The incident occurred amid a legal battle over alleged demolition and acquisition of properties in the affected communities, with homeowners insisting that their properties should not be demolished without due process and adequate compensation.
Some persons in the courtroom who had basic first-aid knowledge reportedly administered cardiopulmonary resuscitation, CPR, in a frantic effort to revive the elderly man.
He was eventually moved to a nearby hospital for further medical attention.
The incident, according to affected property owners, was a grim reminder of the enormous emotional and psychological burden the demolition dispute has imposed on residents who say they invested their lifetime savings in their homes.
The affected landlords alleged that demolition activities linked to the Lagos Metropolitan Area Transport Authority, LAMATA, and other agencies had continued despite court proceedings and an injunction they said was issued in April.
They also alleged that structures continued to be demolished in the affected communities while the matter was still pending before the court.
Adding to the controversy, the property owners alleged that the house of Mrs. Blessing Okere was demolished on September 26, 2026, despite what they described as existing court orders and instructions from the Federal High Court.
The allegation could not be independently verified from the materials available for this report, while no response from LAMATA or the Lagos State Government was provided by the affected homeowners.
For the residents, however, the alleged demolition has intensified fears that more homeowners could lose properties they spent decades acquiring.
‘People are dead, people are in despair’
Speaking to Journalists immediately after the court hearing on Friday October 2nd at the Federal High Court, Lagos, legal practitioner and human rights activist, Femi Dodo, who is counsel to the affected communities, said the dispute had already taken a heavy toll on residents.
According to him, five people had died in connection with the situation, while another applicant was suffering from a debilitating stroke.
“People are dead. People are in despair,” Dodo said.
He confirmed that the second applicant, whom he identified as the person who collapsed in court, was still alive.
“Yes. The second applicant is still alive, by the grace of God,” he said.
odo said the plight of the affected homeowners was particularly painful because many had spent their productive years acquiring properties they expected would provide shelter and financial security in old age.
“How can somebody labour? We all know that in this part of the world, people labour for their whole lives to acquire one or two properties so that by the time they are old, they will have somewhere to rest,” he said.
“They may also have tenants paying rent so they can survive on those benefits because the government itself has failed to provide adequate retirement benefits.”
He added that many workers retire only to face prolonged battles over their retirement benefits, making property ownership an important form of security for many families.
“In that situation, some people have decided to labour to acquire property for themselves. All of a sudden, the government comes and says that because it wants to carry out a project, their property is gone overnight,” he said.
The lawyer said the collapse of the retiree occurred as parties were before the court, with lawyers on both sides making submissions on the matter.
He said the incident heightened the urgency of the case and led the judge to express concern about the alleged consequences of the demolition dispute on human lives.
According to the affected landlords, the judge questioned how demolition activities could continue while the matter was before the court and an injunction was said to be subsisting.
The property owners said the court consequently directed the parties to return for an early and comprehensive hearing, rather than allowing further prolonged adjournments.
Dodo said the residents were not opposed to development or the government’s power to acquire land for public purposes.
“We are not saying that we are against development. We are for development. We are not saying the government does not have the right to acquire people’s property. But my property should not be taken for public interest without compensation,” he said.
“That is why we are saying that there must be compensation. Evidence of compensation must be before the court.”
Compensation controversy
A major point of contention, according to Dodo, is the adequacy and proof of compensation allegedly paid to some affected property owners.
He questioned what he described as reliance on photographs of individuals allegedly receiving documents as evidence that compensation had been paid.
“In this digital age, where you can go to a bank and obtain bank records from three or four years ago, you cannot simply photograph people holding a sheet of paper presented as a cheque and claim that as evidence of compensation. It is ridiculous,” he said.
Dodo maintained that compensation must reflect the value of what property owners were losing.
“Compensation is compensation. Compensation must be adequate. If compensation is not adequate, that is not compensation,” he said.
“You cannot come and take a piece of land and tell me you want to pay me $10,000 when the property is worth far more.”
‘Which acquisition notice will the court rely on?’
Dodo also said the legal battle involved questions surrounding the government’s acquisition of the affected properties and whether the necessary notices had been properly served on the property owners.
He said documents presented before the court included different acquisition notices and gazettes dating from 1979, 1982, February 2025 and May 2025, as well as a notice allegedly issued by the governor.
“They attached notices of acquisition. They first attached a Gazette of 1979, another Gazette of 1982, another notice of acquisition by the government in May 2025, another one in February 2025, and then one by the governor himself,” he said.
“So, we want to know, which we don’t know yet, which of the notices of acquisition or which of the Gazettes will the court rely on to agree that the property was actually acquired?”
According to him, the residents’ position is that affected property owners must be properly served with notices of acquisition.
“If you claim that you have revoked an interest in a property and acquired it, you must serve that notice of acquisition on the affected individual. That is the law. That is what the court will determine,” he said.
Dodo alleged that documents available to his legal team did not show evidence that the relevant notice of acquisition signed by the Lagos State Governor had been served on the affected individuals.
Jurisdiction dispute
Another major issue in the case, according to Dodo, is jurisdiction.
He said the defendants had argued that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case and that the matter should instead be heard by the Lagos State High Court.
“Their argument, as usual, has always been that we cannot come by way of fundamental rights. They say the matter should go to the State High Court,” he said.
Dodo, however, said the residents’ case was based on compulsory acquisition of land and fundamental rights.
“I would like to be careful about commenting on something the court is about to rule on. But the issue of jurisdiction is important,” he said.
“Our case is based on the compulsory acquisition of land and fundamental rights, or human rights as people generally call them.”
He said the residents also had the right to challenge compensation they considered inadequate.
“Even though the government claims that it wants to pay compensation, I have the right to challenge the amount of that compensation if I believe it is not commensurate with what I am about to lose,” he said.
“That is the right to fair hearing.”
Homes built for old age
For the affected homeowners, the dispute goes beyond the physical structures facing demolition.
Many say their homes represent decades of labour, sacrifice and planning for old age.
Dodo said the emotional pressure was particularly severe for elderly homeowners who had expected to spend their retirement years in properties they had worked for throughout their lives.
He said the residents were therefore seeking judicial protection while the dispute over acquisition and compensation was being determined.
“We are hopeful that the court will do justice in this matter,” he said.
As the legal battle continues, the alleged demolition of Mrs. Blessing Okere’s house on September 26 has added another layer to the controversy, with affected residents questioning how demolition could allegedly continue while the dispute remains before the court.
For the homeowners, every demolished wall represents more than a lost structure. It represents years of savings, family memories and the security they believed they had finally secured for their old age.
The post ‘People are dying’: Retiree collapses in court amid Lagos demolition dispute appeared first on Vanguard News.