An Ogun State High Court has nullified a quit notice issued against properties belonging to former Governor and serving Senator Otunba Gbenga Daniel, ruling that the Abiodun administration bypassed mandatory statutory procedures before initiating enforcement action.
The judgment, delivered in a suit arising from a planning compliance dispute in Sagamu, declared the quit notice null and void and found that state enforcement officials had acted outside their legal authority.
The dispute dates to August 2025, when Ogun State planning authorities moved against two properties linked to Daniel and his wife: Asoludero Court, his private residence, and Conference Hotels Limited along with its annex, both in Sagamu. The state issued notices of contravention and a quit notice, threatening demolition within days and citing planning regulation violations and alleged permit deficiencies.
Daniel rejected the action as politically motivated, insisting both properties were backed by valid Certificates of Occupancy predating the current planning regime. His legal team moved swiftly, obtaining an ex-parte order restraining the government from any demolition or interference pending the outcome of the substantive suit.
At the heart of the case was a procedural question: did the Ogun State Government follow its own enforcement sequence before issuing a quit notice?
Under Ogun State planning laws, enforcement must proceed in defined stages — a notice of contravention, an opportunity to remedy, further enforcement steps, and only then a final notice. Daniel’s legal team argued that the government collapsed this sequence, jumping directly to coercive action and stripping the claimants of the procedural safeguards enshrined in the law.
The High Court upheld that argument in full. It held that the enforcement provisions under Ogun State planning laws are mandatory, not discretionary; that government agencies have no latitude to bypass statutory steps; and that the failure to observe due process rendered the quit notice void ab initio. In effect, the court found the Abiodun administration had acted ultra vires.
The state had defended the action as part of a lawful statewide land audit and urban renewal exercise, insisting no individual is above the law. The court’s verdict effectively turned that argument on its head, establishing that enforcement actions conducted in the name of legality must themselves be lawful.
The ruling carries implications well beyond one property dispute. The speed and intensity of enforcement targeting a former governor who now sits in the Senate had drawn widespread scrutiny, with critics questioning whether planning laws were being selectively deployed as a political instrument.
Legal analysts say the judgment reinforces a foundational governance principle: regulatory powers, however legitimate, cannot be weaponised through procedural shortcuts. The judiciary’s intervention signals that executive convenience does not override statutory procedure, regardless of the office directing it.
For Ogun State, the case raises uncomfortable questions about the integrity of its broader land audit programme and whether other enforcement actions across the state were conducted with the same procedural disregard now condemned by the court.
