Across Nigeria, commercial and residential premises are sealed off by government agencies in a purported execution of regulatory or tax mandate. Some private bodies equally seal off the houses of fellow citizens on grounds of non-payment of debts. Even landlords seal off apartments for failure of tenants to pay rents as and when due. However, when premises are sealed off without first obtaining a court order, it is tantamount to self-help—an unlawful method of exercising power without recourse to judicial process. Nigerian courts have consistently condemned this approach on the grounds that it is crude, illegal and unconstitutional.

Self-help refers to actions taken by a person or authority to enforce their alleged rights or claims without judicial authorization. Self-help is particularly unlawful when it involves force, intimidation, or interference with rights without legal sanction. The Supreme Court in the case of The Military Governor of Lagos State v. Chief Emeka Odumegwu Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621, described self-help by government as executive lawlessness, emphasizing that even the State must abide by the rule of law because it rules by law.

Ground rent collection and presidential intervention.

Recently, the Minister of the FCT, Nyesom Wike, justified his decision to seal off offices including the PDP secretariat and the FIRS office in Abuja for alleged violations of urban planning regulations. The controversial nature of the action, executed without prior judicial orders, drew widespread condemnation as critics argued that it represented another instance of executive overreach and self-help by state authorities. The incident highlights the ongoing tension between administrative enforcement and constitutional rights and underscores the urgent need for judicial oversight in property-related sanctions.

Following widespread public concern, President Bola Tinubu intervened in the extrajudicial move by the Authorities of the Federal Capital Territory Authority (FCTA) to enforce ground rent defaults by granting a 14-day grace period before sanctions would apply. This step not only reflected public sensitivity to enforcement actions but also demonstrated the importance of procedural fairness and notice. It further emphasized the role of dialogue and legal compliance over coercive measures like sealing off properties without judicial input.

Judicial decisions on sealing off premises without Court Order

Several statutory frameworks empower authorities to regulate premises—such as the Urban and Regional Planning Act (1992), Lagos State Physical Planning Permit Regulations, Local Government Laws, tax and health laws. However, enforcement must comply with procedural safeguards such as issuance of notices and provision for hearing, failing which the action is void.

In many cases, Nigerian courts have held that no agency of government has the right to seal off any premises without first obtaining a valid court order. This is rooted in Sections 36, 43 and 44 of the 1999 Constitution which guarantee the fundamental rights of citizens to fair hearing, right to privacy of their homes, right to acquire and own immovable property anywhere in Nigeria and right not to have interest in any such property acquired compulsorily in any part of Nigeria except in the manner and for the purposes prescribed by a law. Similar rights are protected by the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights Ratification and Enforcement Act.

Sealing off premises under military regime

Under the defunct military junta, the courts kicked against the practice of sealing off premises. It was the position of the courts that the occupier or owner of a property was entitled to be notified, heard, and subjected to judicial scrutiny before any action could be taken by public authorities and private bodies or individuals. Since the premises of newspaper houses were regularly sealed off under the defunct military junta, a couple of examples are hereunder reviewed.

Concord Press of Nigeria Limited v Attorney-General of the Federation (unreported suit FHC/L/CS/608/94)

In the case of the National Concord Newspaper v Attorney-General of the Federation, the Applicant’s premises along the airport road, Ikeja in Lagos State were sealed off by armed soldiers. In defending the action, the legal notice submitted to the court stated that the premises of the newspaper were “sealed up”. Our law firm sued the military junta on the instructions of the publisher of the newspaper, the late Bashorun M.K.O Abiola.

The presiding Judge, Justice James Oduneye agreed with my submission that since the enabling decree provided that the premises of offending newspaper could be sealed off the legal notice was illegal as it stated that the premises be “sealed up”. The action was also faulted on the grounds that the Applicant was not afforded the opportunity to make a representative to the authorities before the military invasion of the premises. Consequently, the court awarded damages of N500,000 and ordered the immediate reopening of the newspaper. The Court warned against punitive actions taken by government authorities without affording the target an opportunity to be heard

Attorney-General of the Federation & ors v. Punch Nigeria Ltd & Anor (2019) LPELR-48142(SC):

On July 29, 1994, a combined team of soldiers and police personnel invaded and sealed off the premises of the Punch Newspaper in Ikeja, Lagos State. The editor of the newspaper, Bola Bolawole who was on duty at the material time was arrested and detained. On behalf of the newspaper, Chief Gani Fawehinmi SAN challenged the action of the Sani Abacha military junta at the Federal High Court.

In his epochal judgment, Justice T.A. Odunowo condemned the actions of the security agencies and the state for failing to follow due process. The Court held that the rule of law must be observed by the State even under a state of emergency. As the respondent could not justify the reckless abuse of power, the court ordered the respondents to vacate the premises and pay damages of N25 million to PUNCH and an additional sum of N100,000 to the editor, Mr. Bola Bolawole for his unlawful detention.

The appeals filed by the Federal Government against the judgment were dismissed with costs by both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. It was the view of both appellate courts that the appeals were lacking in merit.

Sealing off premises under a democratic government

Under the current political dispensation, the premises of any house or business cannot be sealed off without a court order and without affording the owner or occupier the opportunity of fair hearing. In Bamgboye v. University of Ilorin (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 622) 290, the Supreme Court emphasized that no authority or institution can take adverse action against a citizen’s property or rights without affording him an opportunity to be heard in accordance with Section 36 of the Constitution.

Unilateral sealing off premises amounts to constructive expropriation or deprivation of property. It is a tortious interference with possessory rights.

In Eze v. Spring Bank Plc (2011) LPELR-CA/PH/255/2009, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that forcibly locking up premises, denying access, or disrupting possession without judicial authorization constitutes trespass and a violation of the right to property. The Court emphasized that the proper procedure is through court processes, not administrative fiat.

The right to fair hearing is sacrosanct. When a government agency seals off a property without informing the owner or securing judicial approval, it breaches the constitutional guarantee. In Ayo Fayose v. EFCC (unreported Suit No. FHC/IB/CS/47/201), the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) sealed off the Ibadan residence of the Applicant during an investigation. However, it did so without obtaining a court order.

The Federal High Court in Ibadan ruled the action illegal and awarded N10 million in damages against the EFCC for violating the claimant’s constitutional right to property. The Court emphasized that investigative bodies—even those empowered to tackle financial crimes—must operate within constitutional limits. The ruling set a strong precedent against sealing off premises without a court order.

Unlawful sealing of business premises represents institutional disregard for the rule of law. In Association of Motor Dealers of Nigeria v. Nigeria Customs Service, (unreported Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1233/2021), the Federal High Court (per Akintayo Aluko J.) ruled that the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS) was liable for sealing off over 400 car dealerships in Lagos without judicial authorization. The dealers sued for unlawful invasion, and the Court found that the NCS acted outside the bounds of its statutory authority by sealing off the auto shops arbitrarily. In awarding N500 million in general and aggravated damages, the Court condemned the “high-handed and illegal” conduct of the agency, reaffirming that the rule of law cannot be sacrificed on the altar of administrative convenience.

Sealing off premises is inherently coercive and falls under judicial power. Administrative bodies that bypass courts violate separation of powers. In Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Alhaji Adams Ajabule & Another [2011] NGSC 5 (15 December 2011), the Supreme Court emphasized that no person or authority is permitted to resort to self-help in enforcing any right, regardless of how legitimate the underlying claim may be. The bank’s attempt to enforce a claim without recourse to judicial adjudication was roundly condemned.

The judgment reiterates that judicial process must precede any enforcement action, and any bypass of the courts amounts to executive lawlessness and abuse of power. This decision is critical in strengthening the argument that regulatory or enforcement bodies cannot unilaterally seal premises or properties without judicial backing.

Conclusion.

It is crystal clear from all the decided cases that the courts have ruled that individuals, financial institutions and government agencies, are not permitted to engage in the collection of rents, levies and taxes without strict compliance with legal and procedural rules. Where the law empowers regulatory agencies to seal off the premises of defaulters, the right of such defaulters to fair hearing must be respected in strict compliance with section 36 of the Nigerian Constitution. Enforcement agencies must act within the bounds of the law by applying for court orders before sealing off the any premises of any person.

Finally, it is pertinent to draw the attention of governments and citizens to the case of Attorney-General of Lagos State vs. Attorney-General of the Federation (2004) 18 NWLR (PT 904) 1 at 127-128, where the Supreme Court enjoined governments and citizens to always resolve disputes by seeking redress in court and refrain form resorting to self help. According to Niki Tobi JSC of blessed memory:

“In a society where the rule of law prevails, self help is not available to the Executive or any arm of government. In view of the fact that such a conduct could breed anarchy and totalitarianism, and since anarchy and totalitarianism are antitheses to democracy, courts operating the rule of law, the life blood of democracy, are under a constitutional duty to stand against such action. The courts are available to accommodate all sorts of grievances that are justiciable in law and section 6 of the Constitution gives the courts power to adjudicate on matters between two or more competing parties. In our democracy all the Governments of this country as well as organizations and individuals must kowtow to the due process of the law and this they can vindicate by resorting to the courts for redress in the event of any grievance.”

Thenewsnigeria.com.ng