Ohha Microfinance Bank is seeking ₦20.4bn in damages over the demolition of its headquarters and other properties in Enugu
Ohha Microfinance Bank Limited’s ₦20.4 billion lawsuit against the Enugu State Government over the demolition of its headquarters and other properties will resume on December 7, 2026, as the court considers competing claims over the legality of the demolition, land ownership and compensation.
/ You Might Also Like /
The case, marked E/37/2025, is before the Enugu State High Court, presided over by Justice Cyprian Ajah. Proceedings were adjourned after the judge was absent when the matter came up for hearing.
The dispute centres on the demolition of properties at Holy Ghost, Enugu, on May 15, 2024. The bank alleges that the destruction of its headquarters and other assets occurred without adequate compensation and that the state had not secured the relevant lease documentation before carrying out the demolition.
The state government, however, maintains that it leased the disputed land from Railway Property Company Limited and has presented its own account of the property's previous lease arrangements and the notices issued ahead of the demolition.
The court has yet to determine the parties’ competing claims.
Bank Questions Timing of Government’s Land Lease
A key issue in the case is the timing of the land lease documentation.
In its Statement of Defence, the Enugu State Government stated that Railway Property Management communicated an offer to lease the land at Holy Ghost to the state in a letter dated August 15, 2024. The state subsequently accepted the offer.
The demolition had taken place three months earlier, on May 15, 2024.
Ohha Microfinance Bank, represented by human rights lawyer Olu Omotayo, argues that the lease offer was obtained after the demolition and challenges the legal basis on which the government removed the properties.
The state has also argued that Rev. Fr. Prof. Emmanuel Edeh of Our Saviour Institute of Science, Agriculture and Technology previously held a 25-year lease on the land, which had expired.
It further stated that it instructed officials of the Enugu Capital Territory Development Authority around October 13, 2023, to serve removal notices on buildings affected by the proposed project, including OSISATECH.
The court’s consideration of these positions will be central to resolving the dispute over the land and the demolition.
Demolition Destroyed Bank Headquarters and Other Assets
The demolition affected Ohha Microfinance Bank’s corporate headquarters at No. 1, Ogui Road, Enugu, alongside properties belonging to other businesses.
According to the bank’s case, it received a 72-hour notice to vacate the premises on May 12, 2024, three days before the demolition. The bank also said two safes valued at ₦15 million were destroyed, alongside other assets.
The bank maintains that the incident wiped out investments built over more than 27 years and that it has not received prompt and adequate compensation.
The dispute also involves properties belonging to hundreds of other businesses, with the affected assets reportedly valued at several hundreds of millions of naira.
Beyond the immediate financial losses, the case raises questions about how authorities handle demolition exercises, communicate removal notices and resolve disputes over land rights before carrying out projects that affect existing properties and businesses.
Ohha Microfinance Seeks ₦20.4bn in Damages
The bank filed the suit on January 20, 2025, seeking a declaration that the demolition without prompt and adequate compensation was illegal and unconstitutional.
Its claims rely on Sections 43 and 44(1) of the 1999 Constitution and Articles 22 and 23 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
The bank is seeking ₦420.19 million in special damages and ₦20 billion in aggravated, punitive and general damages, bringing its claims to approximately ₦20.4 billion.
It is also asking for 18 per cent annual interest on the special damages from May 15, 2024, until judgment, as well as 10 per cent annual interest on the judgment sum until full payment.
These are the bank’s claims, and the court has not yet made a final determination on liability or the amount, if any, payable.
Dispute Raises Questions About Property Rights and Investor Confidence
The case carries implications for property owners, businesses and investors who depend on predictable land administration and enforcement of development rules.
Demolition exercises can affect buildings, equipment, business operations, employment and the value of surrounding properties. Where ownership or lease rights remain contested, disputes over notice, title and compensation can create additional uncertainty for businesses operating in the affected area.
For investors, the case highlights the importance of clear land documentation, transparent government procedures and effective mechanisms for resolving property disputes. It also underlines the need for public authorities to establish the legal basis for taking possession of land and to address compensation obligations where applicable.
The case does not, by itself, establish a final finding of unlawful conduct by the state. That determination rests with the court after it considers the evidence and arguments from both sides.
Court to Continue Trial in December
The next hearing is scheduled for December 7, 2026, when proceedings are expected to continue.
The court will have to consider the bank’s challenge to the timing and legality of the lease, the state government’s defence concerning the land and previous lease arrangements, and the claims for damages arising from the demolition.
Until the court reaches a decision, the central issues—including the legality of the demolition and whether compensation is payable remain unresolved.
The outcome could have broader relevance for how land acquisition, demolition and compensation disputes are handled in Enugu, particularly where government projects affect established businesses and privately occupied properties.
READ MORE
