The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) has taken decisive action against several real estate operators in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) by sealing their premises. This enforcement follows allegations that the firms failed to adhere to regulatory directives issued after consumer complaints were lodged.
Enforcement Exercise in Abuja
During the enforcement operation in Abuja on Tuesday, the FCCPC Deputy Director of Surveillance and Investigations, Marvin Nadah, stated that the commission is intensifying efforts to eliminate exploitative and unfair practices within the real estate sector. He revealed that compliance notices had been previously dispatched to the affected companies, requiring them to resolve complaints brought forward by consumers.
Legal Basis for Action
Nadah explained that the commission had requested specific actions to provide redress to consumers, as stipulated under Section 154 of the FCCPC Act. However, the companies failed to comply, prompting the sealing of their business premises in accordance with statutory powers. The complaints involved consumers who had paid for properties that were either never delivered or where refunds ordered by the commission were not executed.
“In one case, consumers had paid for properties that were not delivered. In another, after reviewing the matter, we ordered the company to refund the consumer, but that was not carried out,” Nadah stated.
Scope of Enforcement
The two firms affected by the enforcement action are involved in various real estate activities, including land sales, property development, and property management. When asked about court involvement, Nadah affirmed that the commission acted within the law, citing Section 150(4) which empowers the FCCPC to seal premises when there is non-compliance with a compliance notice.
He added that the initial notice was issued in June 2025, and despite ongoing engagements with the companies, compliance was not achieved.
Next Steps and Consumer Advice
Regarding potential further actions, Nadah indicated that the minimum expectation is full compliance with the commission's directives. Additional measures, including prosecution, remain options. He emphasized that compliance is the basic requirement for the sealed premises to be reopened.
Nadah advised consumers to exercise caution in property transactions, carefully review contractual terms, and seek professional guidance when necessary. “Our duty and mandate remain to protect and promote the interests of consumers,” he concluded.
