Ogun High Court issues a Notice to Quit illegal ruling, invalidating a quit notice for failure to follow statutory planning procedures
The High Court of Justice, Ogun State, Ijebu-Ode Judicial Division, delivered a significant legal judgment on Wednesday, March 26, 2026, ruling that a Notice to Quit issued by the Ogun State Governor’s office and planning authorities was illegal, invalid and null for failing to follow statutory process.
Also read: ASUU threatens nationwide strike over unpaid lecturer pay
The judgment was handed down by Honourable Justice A. A. Omoniyi in a dispute involving Conference Hotel Limited and Otunba Gbenga Daniel against the Governor of Ogun State, the Attorney General, the Ogun State Planning Development Permit Authority and the Commissioner for Physical Planning & Urban Development.
Justice Omoniyi found that the defendants breached the mandatory statutory sequence of notices required under the Ogun State Urban & Regional Planning and Development Law No. 61 of 2022 and the associated planning and development permit regulations when issuing a 12th August 2025 Notice to Quit to the claimants.
The court highlighted that the statutory framework clearly outlines that a Notice to Quit may only be issued after prior issuance and service of a Notice of Contravention and a Notice to Stop Work.
In this case, the High Court found that both the Notice to Quit and the Notice of Contravention were issued on the same day, with no evidence the critical stop work notice was served.
Justice Omoniyi stated that the defective enforcement notice was unlawful and could not stand, urging future planning enforcement efforts to align with legislative requirements.
He also noted that inclusion of a demolition warning clause in the contested notice was itself inconsistent with the regulatory template provided by the legislature.
The High Court further ruled against the lawfulness of the three-day vacate period stipulated in the defective notice, noting that a reasonable minimum notice period must be applied under the law.
It was clarified that a three-day deadline was neither prescribed by statute nor reasonable in practice.
In addressing the claim for damages, the court concluded that while the defendants were lawfully entitled to enter and inspect the property as part of their statutory function, there was insufficient evidence to award compensation for alleged trauma or public ridicule.
Justice Omoniyi observed that speculation and moral conjecture do not meet the evidentiary threshold required for such claims.
The judgment also considered but struck out the defendants’ preliminary argument that the court lacked jurisdiction on grounds that the claimants had failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
The court held that the statutory administrative body without which appeals could be made had not been shown to exist, effectively waiving that requirement.
The High Court therefore maintained jurisdiction to determine the substantive legal questions.
Also read: News central silencing claim triggers outrage online
The ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for enforcement actions by state planning authorities across Ogun State, reinforcing the necessity for administrative compliance and procedural fairness in issuing statutory notices.
