News & Insights

Court Declares Section 36(4) Of AMCON (Amendment 2) Unconstitutional

Court Declares Section 36(4) Of AMCON (Amendment 2) Unconstitutional

A Lagos high court has declared section 34(6) of the AMCON(Amendment No. 2) Act, Unconstitutional.

The court restrained the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria, AMCON, from preventing Mr Adedayo Mumini Shittu from gaining access to his home in Victory Park Estate, Lekki, Lagos.

Justice Kudirat Jose granted the injunction on Thursday, following Shittu’s interlocutory application filed through his counsel Mayowa Owolabi of Pistis Partners LLP.


Shittu and his firm, More & S.A. More Ltd, are first and second claimants while Knight Rook Ltd, Lanre Olaoluwa and AMCON are first to third defendants in the suit which is constituted as LD/8418LMW/19.

Mr Olaoluwa is also Knight Rook’s Reciever Manager.

AMCON had opposed the application by relying on Section 34(6) of the AMCON(Amendment No. 2) Act, 2019 which states that no injunction shall be made against it.

But in her ruling, Justice Jose invalidated AMCON’s reasoning and granted the prayer.

The judge held that the said AMCON provision was unconstitutional as it sought to curtail the powers of the court.

In the substantive suit, the Claimants are seeking to assert their rights of ownership to the various plots of land “which they own and developed in Victory Park Estate, Lekki, Lagos.”

The reliefs they are seeking, as stated in their Statement of Claim, are as follows:

“A declaration that the claimants are the lawful and legal owners of the plots of land at Victory Park Estate, Igbokushu Village, Lekki…

“A declaration that the persistent efforts of the 2nd defendant to take over and prevent the claimants from accessing their various plots of land within Victory Park in purported exercise of his powers as a receiver/manager… as part of measures to coerce and compel the Claimant to revalidate or repurchase their properties is wrongful, illegal and amount to unlawful interference with the claimant’s properties.

“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants…from interfering or attempting to disturb, coerce or attempt to harass the claimants into validating or repurchasing their properties.

“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering or disturbing the claimant’s right to peaceful possession and quiet enjoyment of their properties.

“An order of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to refund the N2,000,000 the defendants surreptitiously collected from the claimant with interest at 21 percent interest rate per annum from January 25, 2019 until judgment.

“Post-judgment interest against the defendants at the rate of 10 percent per annum from the date of Judgment until the Judgment is fully liquidated and cost of the action.”