Court orders final forfeiture of N178.9m, properties, vehicles linked to unlawful activities in Lagos
The federal high court sitting in Lagos has ordered the final forfeiture of N178,966,938, landed properties and vehicles reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities to the federal government.
C. J. Aneke, the presiding judge, gave the order on Monday following a motion on notice filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in suit No. FHC/L/MISC/1311/2025.
According to a statement by Dele Oyewale, EFCC spokesperson, the judge had earlier ordered the interim forfeiture of the assets and directed that the order be published in a national newspaper to allow any interested party to show cause why the properties should not be finally forfeited to the federal government.
Moving the application for final forfeiture, Zeenat Atiku, counsel to the EFCC, told the court that the application was supported by an affidavit deposed to by Isah Yusuf Nadabo, an operative of the commission.
She said investigations showed that the funds and properties were traced to Stanley Akaria Chinemerem and are reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities.
Among the assets finally forfeited is a fully detached six-bedroom duplex built on approximately 722.332 square metres at Nnabuenyi Street (formerly described as AMORC), within the Onigbanko Royal Family land, Abule Oshun, Amuwo Odofin local government area of Lagos State.
The court also ordered the forfeiture of two undeveloped parcels of land located at Onireke town, opposite Ojo Barracks, Amuwo Odofin LGA, Lagos State, measuring 667.070 square metres and one plot measuring 60ft by 120ft.
Two vehicles were equally forfeited — a black 2012 Toyota Highlander with registration number LND 401JC and a red 2018 Toyota Venza with plate number FCT 998 JX.
The EFCC said it had earlier secured an interim forfeiture order on December 12, 2025, which was published in The Punch newspaper on January 8, 2026, in compliance with the court’s directive.
The commission added that the respondent was personally served, but no individual or corporate body came forward to contest the forfeiture.
The judge, after considering the application, held that it had merit and consequently ordered the final forfeiture of the assets to the federal government.
