Lagos socialite and social media influencer, Afolabi Kazeem Michael, popularly known as KC Luxury, has challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in Lagos to make an interim forfeiture order against his properties and assets in connection with his ongoing trial for alleged cocaine trafficking.
Michael, who is standing trial alongside two other defendants, Boniface Freeman Ochoche Sule and Ikechukwu Ekugo Patriarch, is facing a 22-count charge bordering on the alleged trafficking of 184.5 kilogrammes of cocaine.
The defendants are being prosecuted by the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) before Justice Musa Kakaki of the Federal High Court, Lagos, in suit number FHC/LAG/CR/755/2026. 
The challenge followed an interim preservative order granted by the court on September 25, 2026, on an ex parte application by the prosecution, seeking to preserve properties and assets allegedly linked to the defendants.
As part of the order, the court directed the NDLEA to publish the order in a national newspaper and adjourned the matter until Wednesday for a report on compliance.
When the matter came up on Wednesday, prosecution counsel, Abu Ibrahim, told the court that the business of the day was to receive a report on compliance with the publication order.
Ibrahim explained that the court had granted the preservative order on September 25 following an ex parte application by the prosecution and had directed the publication of the order before adjourning the matter for a compliance report.
However, counsel to the defendants, Chief Emefo Etudor, objected to the proceedings, informing the court that he had filed an application challenging its jurisdiction to make the interim forfeiture order.
Etudor argued that the jurisdictional challenge should take precedence over other applications relating to the matter.
“My Lord, I was shown the publication about three days ago and had to rush to file our objection on jurisdiction,” he told the court.
The defence counsel accused the prosecution of attempting to proceed with the compliance report while the legal foundation of the order was being challenged.
He argued that the interim order was obtained without giving the affected defendants an opportunity to be heard.
According to him, Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, guarantees the right to fair hearing, adding that the defendants’ rights should not be disregarded in proceedings capable of affecting their property interests.
Etudor maintained that the NDLEA had approached the court without notice to the defendants and obtained an order affecting their properties and assets without first allowing them to present their side of the case.
He urged the court to set aside the order, arguing that proceedings conducted in breach of the constitutional right to fair hearing could not stand.
After listening to the submissions of counsel, Justice Kakaki said the court would hear the application challenging its jurisdiction alongside the other application before it.
Defence Questions Validity of Ex Parte Order
In an affidavit filed before the court, Etudor stated that Michael was standing trial alongside Sule and Patriarch in the criminal case before Justice Kakaki.
He argued that the defendant was presumed innocent until proven guilty and was entitled to the protection of his constitutionally guaranteed rights, including the right to fair hearing.
The defence further contended that the ex parte order of September 25 was made in circumstances that allegedly denied the affected parties an opportunity to defend their interests.
Among the issues raised in the application was whether the court could validly grant and sustain the order when, according to the defence, the application ought to have been served on the affected parties.
The defence also questioned whether the court had jurisdiction to make the order in the circumstances and alleged that material facts might not have been fully disclosed to the court when the prosecution sought the order.
These claims form part of the arguments advanced by the defence in its application and remain subject to the court’s determination.
Cites Constitutional Right to Fair Hearing
Etudor relied on Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, which guarantees fair hearing in the determination of a person’s civil rights and obligations.
The provision states that a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or tribunal established by law in determining his civil rights and obligations.
The defence also referred to Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which recognises the right of every individual to have his or her cause heard.
Etudor argued that the principles of natural justice require that parties whose rights or interests may be affected by a judicial decision should be given an opportunity to present their cases.
He maintained that, because the affected defendant was allegedly not served with hearing notice before the September 25 proceedings, the order was liable to be set aside.
The defence further argued that where a court order is established to be a nullity, it may be set aside by the court.
Etudor also contended that the prosecution would not suffer prejudice if the application were granted, stating that the applicant was prepared to provide substantial sureties.
The court is expected to consider the jurisdictional challenge and the parties’ respective arguments before determining the applications before it.
