Content

The Committee considers that the central issue is whether, in
granting the application, it would be facilitating the commission
of an offence (namely a breach of the Order) by Mr Kolajo. The
Committee states at the outset that we agree with the applicant
that the mere fact that Mr Kolajo has an interest in Lagos Island
does not mean that he would be involved in the management of the
restaurant, contrary to the Order. However, we are satisfied that
to transfer the licence to Lagos Island Foods Limited would, in
practice, mean that Mr Kolajo is participating in the management of
a food business, contrary to the terms of the Order. That would be
a criminal offence. The transfer of the Licence is not appropriate
having regard to the licensing objectives, which include the
prevention of crime.
-
 While Mr Kolajo and Lagos Island Foods are separate entities,
in practice it is apparent that Mr Kolajo would, at the very least,
have a significant influence on the running of the operation at the
licensed premises. We have heard evidence from the police
confirming Mr Kolajo’s role in the running of the premises
previously, when it had come to the attention of the police. Mr
Kolajo’s ongoing role at the premises is confirmed by the
fact that the applications before us today were both made by Mr
Kolajo, and Mr Kolajo appeared today before the
Committee.
 -        The Committee
carefully considered the fact that Mr Kolajo was no longer a
director of Lagos Island Foods, and the evidence from Companies
House provided in support of that by the applicant’s
representative. However, Companies House confirms that Mr Kolajo
remains a person with significant control over Lagos Island. The
Committee noted that no concrete evidence was provided to the
Committee to show that the company would in practice be run by a
different individual, or any plans for the premises to be managed
in practice by a person removed from Mr Kolajo.
There is a right of appeal
against this decision within 21 days of notice of this decision
under Schedule 5, para 1(d) of the Licensing Act
2003. 
 
- It follows that we do not
need to determine the application for transfer of the DPS to Mr
Kolajo’s wife. However, we would be minded to refuse the
application as it confirms that Mr Kolajo would in practice be
managing the restaurant. In addition, we were provided with no
clear evidence as to Ms Kolajo’s previous experience or
licensing training. The Committee would not have considered it
appropriate to  vary the DPS. 
 
There is a right of appeal
against this decision within 21 days of notice of this decision
under Schedule 5, para. 1(c) of the Licensing Act 2003