By Oluwafemi Kater Ilori Esq, ACArb
- Introduction
In recent times, a publication[1] has circulated widely within legal and non-legal circles asserting that the Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered a landmark decision in FAMAKINWA & ORS v. ODOFIN OLOJA ESTATE RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION & ORS (2016) LPELR-41066(SC). The publication claims that the Supreme court affirmed the powers of Community Development Associations and Estate Residents’ Associations to impose levies and regulate the affairs of residents within their communities.
The purported Judgment of the case would have significant implications on property rights, freedom of association, and the legality of levies imposed by non-statutory bodies, it became necessary to verify the authenticity of the reported case and to ascertain the true legal position. This review was therefore undertaken to confirm whether the cited authority exists and, if not, to identify the correct case attached to the citation.
2. Verification of Authority
A comprehensive and thorough search was conducted across major legal research platforms, including LawPavilion, the Legal Practitioners’ Electronic Law Reports (LPELR), and other recognized Nigerian law report repositories. The objective was to confirm the existence of the case cited as FAMAKINWA & ORS v. ODOFIN OLOJA ESTATE RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION & ORS (2016) LPELR-41066(SC).
The search revealed the following:
The cited case does not exist in the LawPavilion database or in any recognized Nigerian law report.
LawPavilion also issued a public disclaimer[2] on it’s blog expressly disassociating itself from the publication in circulation which attributes the above citation to a supposed Supreme Court decision on Community Development Associations. LawPavilion clarified that the citation LPELR-41066 does not relate to any Supreme Court decision on estate associations. Rather, the case closely attached to that citation is OKAFOR v. LAGOS STATE GOVERNMENT & ANOR (2016) LPELR-41066(CA), a Court of Appeal decision dealing exclusively with enforcement of fundamental rights. Members of the public have been advised to discontinue reliance on the false publication as it does not represent Nigerian law.
These findings confirm conclusively that the alleged Supreme Court decision in FAMAKINWA is fictitious and has no basis in Nigerian jurisprudence.
Review of the Actual Case: OKAFOR v. LAGOS STATE GOVERNMENT & ANOR (2016) LPELR-41066(CA) To eliminate any doubt, the decision attached to the citation LPELR-41066 was reviewed. The case is an appeal arising from a fundamental rights action instituted at the High Court of Lagos State.
3. FACTS OF OKAFOR v. LAGOS STATE GOVERNMENT & ANOR (2016) LPELR-41066(CA)
The Appellant was arrested on Saturday, 25 May 2013 during the monthly environmental sanitation exercise in Lagos State, which involved restriction of movement between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. She was arraigned before the Special Offences Court, pleaded guilty to wandering and loitering during the restricted hours, and was fined ₦2,000. After paying the fine, she instituted an action at the High Court of Lagos State seeking enforcement of her fundamental rights to dignity of the human person, personal liberty, and freedom of movement.
The High Court dismissed her application in its entirety, prompting an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Decision of the Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal held, inter alia, that:
A relief seeking a declaration that restriction of movement during sanitation hours was unconstitutional properly fell within the scope of enforcement of fundamental rights under section 41 of the Constitution. The trial court erred in striking out the relief on the ground that it was not personal to the Appellant, as the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 allow public-interest enforcement of rights.
The decision was concerned solely with constitutional limits on state-imposed restriction of movement and the procedure for enforcement of fundamental rights. The court also stated that a directive by the Governor is not a law and cannot be escalated to a criminal offence. It made no pronouncement on Community Development Associations, estate associations, or the legality of levies imposed by such bodies.
4. Implications of the False Publication
The circulation of a non-existent Supreme Court decision poses serious risks to legal practice and public administration. Reliance on fabricated authorities can mislead courts, lawyers, and members of the public into believing that estate associations possess statutory powers which have never been conferred by law. Such misinformation may encourage unlawful levies, infringement of residents’ rights, and avoidable litigation.
This incident underscores the necessity for practitioners to verify all online authorities through recognized law reports before relying on them for advisory or advocacy purposes.
5. Judicial Consideration of Community Development Associations: The Megawatts Decision
Although the purported Supreme Court decision in FAMAKINWA is non-existent, Nigerian courts have in fact considered disputes involving Community Development and Residents’ Associations. A notable authority is Megawatts Nigeria Limited v. Registered Trustees of Gbagada Phase 2 Residents’ Association & Ors,[3] where the court examined the legality of compelling a corporate entity to belong to and pay levies to an estate association.[4]
In that case, Megawatts Nigeria Limited, a company operating within Gbagada Phase 2 Estate, alleged that it was harassed and coerced into joining the Residents’ Association and compelled to pay dues despite providing its own security, electricity, and waste management. The Association restricted access to the company’s premises when it failed to pay levies, prompting Megawatts to institute an action for enforcement of its fundamental rights to freedom of association and movement under sections 40 and 41 of the Constitution.
The Association challenged the suit on the ground that an artificial person could not enforce fundamental rights. The court rejected this argument, holding that where the rights of employees or officers of a corporate body are infringed in a manner affecting the company, the company may sue to protect those rights.
On the merits, the court affirmed the constitutional principle that membership of an association must be voluntary and that no person natural or artificial can be compelled to join an association. However, the court emphasized that the issue of membership must be determined by reference to the constitution of the particular association and the conduct of the parties. While Megawatts could not prove it was forced into membership, the court held that the Association’s acts of restricting access to its premises in order to enforce payment were coercive and unlawful, and consequently restrained the Association from further harassment.
Importantly, the court also held that the right to freedom of movement is inherently human and cannot be invoked by an artificial person such as a company.
The significance of the decision lies in its confirmation that disputes involving CDAs are constitution-specific. The court’s reasoning turned largely on the provisions of the Association’s constitution and the absence of conduct amounting to voluntary membership by Megawatts. The case therefore does not establish a blanket rule either validating or invalidating CDA levies; rather, it demonstrates that the enforceability of such levies depends on:
- the precise wording of the association’s constitution;
- whether membership is voluntary or implied through conduct and;
- whether enforcement measures are reasonable comply with constitutional rights.
6. Conclusion
The alleged Supreme Court decision in FAMAKINWA & ORS v. ODOFIN OLOJA ESTATE RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION & ORS (2016) LPELR-41066(SC) does not exist. The Law Pavilion references the Court of Appeal decision in OKAFOR v. LAGOS STATE GOVERNMENT & ANOR (2016) as closely associated with the LELR citation Number, which deals exclusively with enforcement of fundamental rights and has no relevance or connection with the powers of Community Development or Estate Residents’ Associations.
Existing judicial pronouncements on CDAs, such as the decision in Megawatts Nigeria Limited v. Registered Trustees of Gbagada Phase 2 Residents’ Association & Ors, demonstrate that the legality of levies and compulsory membership is determined on a case-by-case basis with primary regard to the association’s constitution and the conduct of the parties. There is therefore no Supreme Court authority granting blanket powers to CDAs to impose levies on residents.
Lehi Attorneys is a full-service intermediary law firm with a strong focus on helping clients deliver on their tasks by providing legal services across various jurisdictions. We have carved out a niche by providing expert advice in the commercial sector, including Intellectual Property, Real Estate, Trade Law and Policy, Corporate Law, Health and Pharmaceuticals, as well as Media and Entertainment. Further information about the firm is available at www.lehiattorneys.com
DISCLAIMER
This is a publication of Lehi Attorneys solely for educational and information purposes and is not meant to serve as legal advice. For more information, contact Lehi Attorneys at:
www.lehiattorneys.com
info@lehiattorneys.com
[1] https://businessnewshub.com.ng/2025/01/11/cda-supreme-court-rule-on-residents-obligations/;
[2] https://lawpavilion.com/blog/notice-of-disclaimer-for-wrongful-and-misleading-publication/
[3] Megawatts Nig. Ltd v. Registered Trustees of Gbagada Phase 2 Residents’ Association & 3 Ors (Suit number: FHC/L/CS/982/2020)
[4] https://www.aluko-oyebode.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/AOMB-Megawatts-Nigeria-Limited-v.-Registered-Trustees-of-Gbagada-Phase-2.pdf