Drama In Ikoyi! Abiola Family Reclaims Mansion After Court Defeats GTBank

The Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal has overturned a 2013 ruling by the Federal High Court that allowed Guaranty Trust Bank (GTBank) Plc to seize a 44-room Ikoyi mansion reportedly worth ₦30 billion. The property belongs to Alhaji Agboola Abiola, son of the late business mogul and politician, Chief M.K.O. Abiola.

According to a Certified True Copy of the appellate decision in Appeal No. CA/L/888/2014, obtained by The PUNCH, the court found critical defects in the tripartite legal mortgage used by GTBank to secure the loan in question.

Delivering the unanimous judgment, Justice Paul Aimee Bassi—supported by Justices Polycarp Kwahar and Abdulaziz Anka—held that the trial court failed to properly consider serious allegations of forgery and fraud raised by the appellants.

The appeal challenged a June 20, 2014 decision by the Federal High Court, which had ruled in favour of GTBank based on a motion filed on April 8, 2014. Represented by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Dr. Charles Adeogun-Phillips, the appellants filed a four-ground appeal questioning the lower court’s judgment.

Key issues included:

1. Whether GTBank was permitted to amend its affidavit after the matter was reserved for judgment.

2. Whether the reliefs granted to GTBank were lawful.

3. Whether a valid mortgage existed to justify appointing a receiver over the property.

In the lead judgment, Justice Bassi declared that the mortgage relied upon by GTBank was “fundamentally flawed” and could not justify any foreclosure.

While RCN Networks Ltd (first appellant) acknowledged signing the mortgage deed, the second appellant, Agboola Abiola, denied doing so. He alleged the execution page bearing his signature was fraudulently extracted from an unrelated document and inserted into the mortgage.

The appellants further accused GTBank of unlawfully consolidating two distinct loans—₦508 million and ₦1 billion—without consent. They claimed that shares used as collateral for the first loan were liquidated by the bank, which then reused the same execution page to enforce the second loan.

Although police investigations into the alleged forgery were inconclusive—with one report suggesting arbitration and another dismissing the claim—the Court of Appeal ruled that the inconsistencies warranted serious judicial scrutiny.

Justice Bassi highlighted discrepancies in the pagination of the mortgage deed, noting that while the main document was numbered from “2 of 9” to “9 of 9,” the signature page read “11 of 17,” indicating it likely came from another source.

He criticised the lower court for overlooking these anomalies and focusing narrowly on Clause 6 of the deed. “The trial court erred by relying on a document whose authenticity was clearly in question. This appeal succeeds,” he declared.

The appellate court ultimately set aside the Federal High Court’s judgment:

“The judgment of the lower court dated June 20, 2014, is hereby set aside. Each party shall bear their own costs.”