Lawyer Says Joint Venture Dispute Involves Guzape and Katampe Properties as Court Case Continues
A civil dispute involving $2.1 million and a proposed real estate development in Abuja concerns 3.2 hectares of land, not 60 hectares as alleged in social media reports, Ibrahim Garba Waru, lawyer to Safwan Garba and GY Global Oil and Gas Nigeria Limited, has clarified.
Waru said the case, which is before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), arose from a joint venture arrangement involving land in Guzape and Katampe districts of Abuja. He described claims that the dispute concerns 60 hectares as inaccurate.
According to the lawyer, the agreement required his clients to invest $4.2 million in a residential property development project. In return, Jordan Nwosu Wike was expected to provide 1.5 hectares of land in Guzape and another 1.7 hectares in Katampe.
The parties allegedly agreed to share proceeds from the sale of the completed properties, with 60 per cent allocated to the claimants and the remaining 40 per cent to Jordan.
Waru Explains Disputed $2.1 Million Payment
Waru alleged that his clients paid Jordan $2.1 million, representing half of their agreed financial contribution to the project. He said the payment was acknowledged as part-payment before the business relationship reportedly broke down.
The lawyer maintained that the disagreement emerged after the money had been handed over, leading to the ongoing court action.
Jordan, however, has denied receiving the money and questioned the authenticity of documents submitted by the claimants in support of their allegations.
The competing accounts concerning the payment and the supporting evidence remain central issues in the proceedings.
Lawyer Clarifies Dates Surrounding the Transaction
Waru also addressed questions about Jordan’s whereabouts during the period of the alleged transaction, arguing that two separate dates had been confused in public discussions.
He identified September 26, 2025, as the date on which negotiations reportedly began, while October 17, 2025, was the date the claimants said the $2.1 million cash payment was made.
According to Waru, the initial discussions took place through telephone calls and WhatsApp messages rather than a face-to-face meeting. He said the claimants had submitted the exchanges as evidence before the court.
The lawyer explained that Jordan’s argument that he was outside Nigeria related to September 26, when the proposed business arrangement was allegedly first discussed, rather than October 17, the date of the disputed payment.
Waru insisted that the cash was delivered on October 17, 2025, at a residence in Gwarimpa, Abuja, with witnesses present.
He added that two witnesses, who allegedly assisted in carrying the money and placing it inside the defendant’s vehicle, had testified before the court.
Boarding Pass Dispute and Court Proceedings
The lawyer questioned whether a boarding pass presented by the defence was sufficient to establish Jordan’s whereabouts on the date of the alleged payment. He argued that the document did not clearly identify the year to which it related.
Waru reiterated that the claimants maintained the payment occurred on October 17, 2025, and not on September 26, the date associated with the commencement of negotiations.
Providing an update on the trial, he said the claimants had completed presenting their case, while the defence had begun calling witnesses, with Jordan appearing as its first defence witness.
The court adjourned the matter to December 1, 2 and 14, 2026, for further hearing.
Claimants Seek Reassignment of Presiding Judge
Waru disclosed that he had written to the Chief Judge of the FCT High Court requesting that the case be transferred to another judge.
He said the request followed information brought to the claimants’ attention about alleged close community and family connections between Jordan and the presiding judge.
According to Waru, the letter asked that the current judge cease handling the matter and that it be reassigned to another court.
The lawyer said the claimants had not received a response from the Chief Judge’s office regarding their request.
The allegation concerning the reported relationships was presented by Waru as the basis for the reassignment request; no decision by the Chief Judge on the matter was disclosed.
EFCC Petition Remains Awaiting an Update
Waru also provided an update on a separate petition his clients submitted to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) concerning the transaction.
He said the claimants had provided documents and other materials requested by the commission and had cooperated with investigators. However, they had yet to receive information about the petition’s outcome or current status.
The lawyer said he had previously contacted the investigating police officer handling the matter to seek an update but stopped making calls after his attempts reportedly went unanswered.
He maintained that his clients had fulfilled their obligations to the commission and were still waiting for feedback.
The civil case continues as the parties maintain opposing positions over the alleged payment, the supporting documents and the terms of the proposed property development agreement.
