What began as a commercial disagreement over the Apo Resettlement Scheme Market in Abuja is fast becoming a defining moment for the enforcement of judicial authority and the protection of property investors in Nigeria.
At the centre of the controversy is the alleged refusal by Manillah Integrated Partners Ltd and AMAC Investment Development Company to comply with a subsisting court order halting construction on the disputed project—an action that raises urgent questions about respect for the rule of law and the safety of public investment.
The dispute traces back to a suit before the FCT High Court, where Justice Yusuf Halilu granted an interlocutory injunction on April 15, 2025, directing all parties involved in the project to cease further work pending the determination of the substantive matter.
The order was not only issued but duly served and visibly enforced at the site, with court bailiffs pasting the directive and marking the premises with a “Stop Work” notice on April 28, 2025. For many observers, that should have marked a pause in all activities and deference to the judicial process.
Yet, developments on the ground appear to tell a different story. Reports indicate that construction activities have continued despite the court’s directive, with claims that the posted injunction notices were removed and the “Stop Work” inscription erased.
When a team of journalists, in the company of some security personnel, visited the site on May 12, 2025, it was observed that not only were construction works on the multi-million-naira market project still ongoing, but the documents of the interlocutory injunction pasted on the administrative wall of the project by the court bailiff had also been removed, and the “Stop Work” order written on the walls had been erased.
On May 3, 2025, a party in the matter, Dr Shuaibu Musari, visited the site to assess compliance with the court order but was allegedly attacked by site workers with shovels and other dangerous materials.
If accurate, such actions go beyond mere oversight; they point to a deliberate defiance of judicial authority.
In a country where the courts are constitutionally empowered to interpret and enforce the law, such conduct is not only provocative but also potentially punishable.
Under Nigerian law, disobedience of a court order constitutes contempt of court—an offence that strikes at the heart of the justice system.
The implications for a party found guilty can be severe, ranging from fines to imprisonment, and in some cases, legal setbacks that could influence the outcome of the substantive case itself.
Beyond the courtroom, however, lies a more immediate and human concern—the risk faced by unsuspecting Nigerians who may be investing in the project.
Despite the ongoing litigation and the court’s directive, there are claims that shops within the Apo Market are being marketed and sold. This places potential buyers in a precarious position, as any transaction conducted while the property is under judicial dispute may ultimately prove invalid or unenforceable.
Should the court rule against the party undertaking the sales, those who have paid for shops could find themselves entangled in protracted legal battles or, worse, stripped of their investments entirely.
This uncertainty is compounded by the legal doctrine that discourages transactions on properties under litigation, effectively placing a cloud over such deals. In practical terms, it means that buyers are not just purchasing physical spaces but also inheriting the legal risks attached to them. In a volatile property market, that is a gamble few can afford.
The situation has also taken a troubling turn with reports of violence at the construction site. An alleged attack on representatives of the opposing developer underscores the tension surrounding the project and raises concerns about public safety.
When disputes of this nature escalate beyond legal arguments into physical confrontations, it signals a breakdown in orderly conflict resolution and heightens the urgency for intervention.
For regulators and enforcement agencies, the unfolding events present a critical test. The apparent continuation of work in defiance of a court order suggests gaps not only in compliance but also in enforcement.
It raises the question of whether existing mechanisms are sufficient to ensure that judicial decisions are respected on the ground. The responsibility extends beyond the courts to include administrative authorities and law enforcement bodies tasked with maintaining order and protecting citizens.
Ultimately, the Apo Market dispute is shaping up to be more than a disagreement between two developers. It is a reflection of broader systemic issues—how effectively court orders are enforced, how well investors are protected from high-risk ventures, and how seriously the rule of law is taken in practice.
The outcome of this case, and the actions taken in response to the alleged defiance by Manillah Integrated Partners Ltd and AMAC Investment Development Company, will likely send a strong signal to both the real estate sector and the wider public.
For now, caution remains the most prudent course for prospective buyers. Until the court reaches a final determination, the project remains legally uncertain, and any financial commitment carries inherent risk. As the judiciary weighs its next steps, the expectation is clear: that the authority of the court will be upheld and that no individual or entity will be allowed to operate above the law.
However, at the resumed hearing on Thursday, April 23, 2026, at the Maitama High Court, Justice Yusuf Halilu adjourned further hearing of the matter to May 7, 2026, to enable the second claimant, AMAC Investment Development Company, to serve the defendant, Dr Shuaibu Musari, with a subpoena.
Counsel to the second claimant, Idris Abubakar SAN, had earlier presented a witness, Hassan Ahmed Omale, a legal practitioner, who allegedly prepared a Joint Venture Agreement between Dr Shuaibu Musari and Manillah Integrated Partners Ltd, who is also a third claimant in the case.
Also, counsel to the first claimant, Dr Shuaibu Musari, Realwan Okpanachi, who was represented by Barr. Godwin, sought the approval of the court to serve orders of contempt—Forms 48 and 49—on the second and third claimants (Manillah Integrated Partners Ltd and AMAC Investment Development Company) through substituted means (WhatsApp, etc.), stating that they had not been successfully served.
While the presiding judge, Justice Yusuf Halilu, approved substituted service, counsel to the second claimant, Idris Abubakar SAN, however, received Forms 48 and 49 on behalf of the second and third claimants.
This implies that Dr Shuaibu Musari has initiated contempt of court proceedings against Manillah Integrated Partners Ltd and AMAC Investment Development Company for allegedly disobeying a court order.
Forms 48 and 49 are legal documents used in Nigerian civil procedure to initiate contempt of court proceedings, specifically when a party disobeys a court order. The penalty for disobeying court orders can include imprisonment of the contemnor.
Manillah Integrated Partners Ltd was noticeably absent at the resumed hearing.
The first claimant, Dr Shuaibu Musari, is seeking an order mandating the second and third claimants to pay a ₦850 million fine for allegedly disregarding the April 2025 interlocutory injunction issued by the court, pending the final determination of the substantive matter.
Will Manillah Integrated Partners Ltd and AMAC Investment Development Company get away with this contemptuous disregard for the court order? That is for Justice Yusuf Halilu and the Nigerian judiciary to determine.
