…Say only PTAD, NICON can jointly dispose assets under consent judgment
A fresh dispute has erupted over the proposed disposal of 28 properties linked to the Federal Government Pension Transitional Arrangements Directorate (PTAD) and NICON Insurance Limited, with parties to the controversy warning prospective buyers against entering into transactions with any person or entity not authorised by a consent judgment of the Federal High Court.
The warning centres on a consent judgment delivered by Justice R.N. Ofili-Ajumogobia on July 23, 2025, in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/2310/2022, between the Federal Government Pension Transitional Arrangements Directorate and NICON Insurance Limited.
According to the position being canvassed in connection with the judgment, the court-approved arrangement vested PTAD and NICON with the responsibility to jointly make the necessary arrangements for the disposal of 28 properties located in different parts of the country.
The proceeds are understood to be intended primarily to offset outstanding legacy liabilities, with any balance arising from the increased value of the properties to be shared by the parties as revenue in accordance with the terms of the arrangement.
However, a new controversy has emerged over attempts allegedly being made by PTAD, in conjunction with the National Insurance Commission (NAICOM) and some officials of the Ministry of Finance, to proceed with the disposal of the properties through a purported liquidator whose appointment, according to the parties raising the alarm, is currently the subject of litigation.
Those raising the objection contend that such a move could conflict with the terms of the consent judgment, particularly the provision relating to the joint involvement of PTAD and NICON in the disposal process.
They therefore urged members of the public, prospective investors and property purchasers to exercise extreme caution and verify the authority of anyone offering any of the affected properties for sale.
“The consent judgment gave NICON and PTAD the sole power to jointly undertake all necessary arrangements for the purpose of disposing of the 28 properties,” the parties stated.
They further argued that any attempt to sideline NICON and transfer the disposal process to a purported liquidator would amount to acting outside the framework established by the court.
The controversy is significant because the properties are reportedly located in various parts of Nigeria and their values have increased, making the proposed disposal potentially substantial in financial terms.
Under the arrangement cited by the parties, the properties are to be sold to address the outstanding legacy debts, while the remainder arising from their enhanced values is to be shared as revenue between the parties.
The dispute, however, is now focused less on the commercial value of the properties than on the identity and authority of those legally empowered to dispose of them.
The parties raising the alarm specifically questioned the status of the purported liquidator, insisting that the validity of the appointment is itself before the courts.
They warned that prospective purchasers who ignore the pending legal dispute and enter into agreements with unauthorised parties could expose themselves to significant legal and financial risks.
“The general public is hereby warned against entering into any contract of sale in respect of any of the properties with parties not recognised in the consent judgment,” they said.
According to them, any transaction purportedly entered into by parties lacking the authority contemplated by the consent judgment could be challenged in court and potentially declared null and void.
Consent judgments generally derive their force from the agreement of the parties as adopted by the court, making compliance with their terms central to the implementation of any settlement reached before the court.
In the present case, the parties challenging the proposed alternative disposal process are insisting that the July 23, 2025 judgment must be respected until varied or otherwise affected by a competent court.
They consequently called on prospective buyers, estate investors, financial institutions and other stakeholders to conduct thorough due diligence before committing funds to any transaction involving the 28 properties.
They also urged relevant government agencies to ensure that the implementation of the judgment follows the terms approved by the court, rather than creating a parallel disposal mechanism whose legality is being contested.
The dispute is expected to remain a subject of judicial scrutiny as the parties seek clarification on the authority to dispose of the properties and the legal implications of the purported appointment of the liquidator.
Until the controversy is resolved, the warning issued by the parties places prospective purchasers on notice that transactions involving the affected properties may be subject to challenge if they are concluded outside the authority contemplated by the consent judgment.
The parties maintained that the safest course for prospective investors is to establish, before making any payment or signing any agreement, that the proposed transaction is being undertaken jointly and with the authority contemplated by the Federal High Court’s consent judgment.