Matanmi Family Debunks Bankole Family’s Land Ownership Claims in Ijoko-Ota, Insists Supreme Court Judgments Uphold Its Position

Calls for Retraction of Radio Broadcast, Challenges Bankoles to Produce Judgment Ceding Disputed Land to Them

The Matanmi family of Matanmi Compound, Ijoko, Ota, Ogun State, has strongly refuted claims attributed to the Bankole family over ownership of extensive parcels of land in Ijoko, insisting that the claims are misleading and unsupported by any judgment granting the disputed land to the Bankole family.

The family’s position was contained in a letter dated October 30, 2026, issued by its solicitors, OAF LLP, Barristers and Solicitors, and addressed to the Publishers of VOA News following an advertorial reportedly aired on Faaji FM radio programme at about 7:00 a.m.

According to the letter, the broadcast allegedly claimed that the Bankole Family owned extensive areas of land covering Onipetesi, Araromi Bambi, Afami Ijoko, Olokemeji, Oju Alale, Paare, Daniel Farm, Frank Comet and the Ijoko Market area.

However, the Matanmi family has challenged the basis of the claims, maintaining that the Bankole Family has not obtained any judgment establishing ownership of any portion of the land in question.

In its response, the Matanmi Family asserted that it had secured two Supreme Court judgments relating to the entire Ijoko land, in addition to judgments and rulings from the Court of Appeal and the Ogun State High Court.

The legal documents referenced in the letter include; Suit No. HCL/36/1979, Appeal No. CA/I/235/90, Appeal No. SC/174/97 and Suit No. MT/70/2002.

The family further stated that the parcels of land being claimed by the Bankole Family fall within the area covered by its judgments, as described in Survey Plan No. ESEW/W/2523/2015, drawn by M. A. Seweje.

Consequently, the Matanmi family, through its solicitors, challenged the Bankoles to produce the judgment allegedly transferring ownership of the disputed land to them.

The family maintained that the existence and scope of the judgments it cited should be carefully examined before claims of ownership are presented to the public as established facts.

Matanmi family also raised questions about the historical relationship between the two families, alleging that Nasiru Bankole, whom it described as the progenitor of the reigning Bankoles, purchased the farm of Lawani Oke but did not challenge the Matanmi family’s ownership of the land.

According to the solicitors, the dispute over the broader areas of Ijoko land became more pronounced in recent times, following the emergence of competing claims involving certain individuals and traditional leadership structures in the community.

The family also questioned the claim to Oju Alale, which it described as the location where Pa Matanmi first settled before founding the town.

These historical assertions form part of the Matanmi family’s position in the ongoing land ownership dispute.

Addressing the legal proceedings involving the disputed property, ‘Ogun State High Court, set aside an execution carried out on a structure described as the Bankoles’ palace in the Bambi/Market area of Ijoko.

However, the family’s solicitors argued that the ruling setting aside the execution should not be interpreted as a judgment conferring ownership of the disputed parcels of land on the Bankole family’.

The solicitors maintained that the ruling in Suit No. MT/70/2002 concerned the setting aside of the execution and, in their interpretation, did not establish the Bankole Family’s ownership of the land.

The family further indicated that the ruling itself could be subjected to review.

Meanwhile, the family criticised the radio station’s handling of the advertorial, arguing that adequate investigation should have been conducted before the claims were broadcast.

Its solicitors expressed concern that the document reportedly presented to the programme’s anchor appeared to contain the ruling setting aside the execution rather than a judgment establishing the Bankole family’s ownership of the disputed land.

The family has therefore demanded the immediate retraction of the advertorial, warning that it would consider an appropriate response if its demand did not receive the necessary attention.

Matanmi Family urged media organisations to exercise caution when reporting contentious land ownership disputes, particularly where court judgments and historical claims are involved.