What began as a contentious battle over corporate authority and valuable property has taken a dramatic legal turn, with First Atlantic Investment Company Limited relying on an already-concluded police investigation and a pending criminal prosecution to push back against what its legal team portrays as an attempt to reopen matters that have already moved into the courtroom.
At the heart of the dispute is a property identified in the legal documents as 24A and 24B GRA, Aba-Owerri Road, Aba, Abia State, alongside allegations concerning the authority to act on behalf of First Atlantic Investment Company Limited.
A letter from the legal representatives of First Atlantic to the Police Monitoring Unit makes a central argument: the complaints in question have already been subjected to police investigation, including an investigation by the former Inspector-General of Police Special Investigation Unit, and the matter has subsequently progressed to the Lagos State High Court.
According to the document, the Inspector General of Police has already filed a criminal charge before the Lagos State High Court against Ribiza Hotel & Resort Limited and 3 Ors.
The charges listed in the document are serious and include allegations of conspiracy to commit a felony, forgery, obtaining money by false pretences, receiving or dealing with allegedly fraudulently obtained property or proceeds, fraudulent appropriation of First Atlantic’s property and impersonation.
One of the allegations specifically concerns the purported representation of an individual as the company secretary of First Atlantic Investment Company Limited—an issue that goes directly to the question of corporate authority at the centre of the dispute.
The legal battle is therefore no longer simply a disagreement over corporate control or property rights. Based on the contents of the letter, it has escalated into a matter involving police investigation, criminal prosecution and judicial determination.
For First Atlantic, the significance of the development is clear: its legal representatives are resisting any attempt to treat the allegations as though they are being investigated for the first time.
Their position, as contained in the letter, is that the appropriate forum for determining the allegations is now the court, particularly because a formal criminal charge has already been instituted.
The document further states that the case had been fixed for arraignment on October 20, 2026, placing the dispute firmly within the judicial process.
The implication is potentially significant.
Rather than allowing a cycle of repeated invitations and investigations to overshadow an existing prosecution, First Atlantic’s legal team is effectively asking the Police Monitoring Unit to step back and allow the judicial process to run its course.
That position also places the allegations concerning First Atlantic’s property and corporate identity under the scrutiny of a court, where evidence can be tested and the competing claims determined according to law.
The development represents a major escalation in a corporate dispute that has attracted allegations of attempted appropriation, disputed authority and alleged misrepresentation.
For First Atlantic, however, the message from its lawyers is unmistakable: the company is prepared to defend its corporate identity, its property interests and its legal position through the appropriate judicial channels.
The case now moves beyond competing narratives.
With a criminal charge already before the Lagos State High Court, the next decisive stage is the courtroom, where the allegations will be tested against evidence and the defendants will have the opportunity to answer the charges against them.
Until the court determines otherwise, the allegations remain allegations and none of the defendants should be regarded as guilty merely because charges have been filed.
But one thing is clear from the legal document: the First Atlantic dispute has entered a far more consequential phase, and the company is no longer merely responding to the controversy, it is actively defending its corporate and property interests before the institutions empowered to determine them.
