The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) has taken decisive action by sealing the premises of several real estate companies operating in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). This enforcement follows the firms' alleged failure to comply with regulatory directives issued after consumer complaints were lodged against them.
Enforcement Action in Abuja
Speaking during the enforcement exercise in Abuja yesterday, the FCCPC Deputy Director of Surveillance and Investigations, Marvin Nadah, explained that the action is part of the commission's ongoing efforts to curb obnoxious and exploitative practices within the real estate sector. He disclosed that the commission had earlier issued compliance notices to the affected firms, instructing them to address the complaints brought before the agency by consumers.
“We had requested and directed certain actions to be taken to provide redress to consumer complaints that were before us. That is in line with Section 154 of the FCCPC Act,” he said. Nadah elaborated that the companies failed to comply with these directives, prompting the commission to seal their business premises in accordance with its statutory powers.
Nature of Consumer Complaints
The complaints involved consumers who paid for properties that were either not delivered or where refunds ordered by the commission were not made. “In one case, consumers had paid for properties that were not delivered. In another case, after reviewing the matter, we ordered the company to refund the consumer, but that was not carried out,” Nadah stated.
He noted that the two firms affected by the enforcement action operate in the real estate sector, including land sales, property development, and management. When asked about the involvement of the courts, Nadah maintained that the commission acted within the provisions of the law. “Section 150(4) empowers us to seal any premises when there is non-compliance with a compliance notice that has been issued,” he said.
Timeline and Next Steps
The initial compliance notice was issued in June 2025, and engagements with the companies have taken place since then, but compliance was still not achieved. On possible next steps, Nadah said the minimum expectation from the affected firms is compliance with the commission’s directives, adding that further actions, including prosecution, could still be considered.
Regarding the conditions for reopening the sealed premises, Nadah emphasized that compliance is the barest minimum requirement. He advised consumers to exercise caution when engaging in property transactions by carefully reviewing contractual terms and seeking professional guidance where necessary.
