The Family of the late military Head of State, General Sani Abacha, has lodged an 11-grounds of appeal against President Bola Tinubu and the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, following the revocation of their property situated within the Maitama highbrow district of Abuja.
In the appeal they filed before the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, the family, represented by wife of the late military leader, Hajia Maryam Abacha and her eldest surviving son, Mohammed, applied for the property to be returned to them.
They contended that the Certificate of Occupancy of the property marked FCT/ABUKN 2478, covering plot 3119 and issued on June 25, 1993, was unlawfully revoked by the Respondents and handed over to a company, Salamed Ventures Limited.
Aside from President Tinubu and Mr. Wike, the Federal Capital Territory Development Authority, FCDA, was also cited as a Respondent in the matter.
Specifically, the Abacha family, through their team of lawyers led by Dr. R. O. Atabo, SAN, is praying the appellate court to set aside the judgement of the Federal High Court in Abuja delivered on July 19, which stripped them of the ownership of the property.
They maintained that trial Justice Peter Lifu erred in law when he held that their claim to the property was previously dismissed by both High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, and the Court of Appeal in 2009 and 2015, respectively.
The Appellants argued that the two courts merely struck out the case on the premise that the FCT High Court lacked the requisite jurisdiction to entertain it.
It is the contention of the Appellants that contrary to the position of trial Justice Lifu, the appellate court, stressed that only the Federal High Court has the jurisdiction to determine the matter.
They further alleged that though Justice Lifu had on his own, raised the issue that they were bereft of the locus standi (legal right) to file the case, he, however, failed to give the parties the opportunity to address the court on the matter.
More so, they faulted the trial court for declaring that their suit had become statute barred, insisting that whereas the appellate court gave its previous judgement on May 18, 2015, they filed the instant case on May 25, 2015.
They also faulted the Judge for erring in law when he recognised Salamed Ventures limited as 4th respondent who derived title to their property in dispute during the pendency of their case between the FCT Minister and the FCDA.
According to them, a party to a proceeding cannot transfer title to a 3rd party during the pendency of an action, adding that the 1st – 3rd Respondents purportedly sold the property in dispute to the 4th Respondent during the proceedings of their suit which commenced on March 1, 2006.
“The Certificate of Occupancy upon which the 4th Respondent claims title was issued to it by the 1st – 3rd Respondents on the 25th day of May, 2011 during the pendency of Appellants’ appeal to the Court of Appeal with appeal No: CA/A/197/2010.
“By Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution, judicial powers are vested in our Courts and it is the duty of Courts to determine dispute between individuals and government or government agencies. Where a party to a proceeding transfers title to property in a dispute, such attitude is an affront on the authority of our Courts and same will not be condoned..
“The trial Judge of the lower court erred in Law when he held that the revocation of the Appellants title to plot 3119 Maitama, Abuja, was valid even when the purported revocation was not carried out in accordance with Section 28 of the Land
“The learned trial Judge erred in Law when he held that the Appellants action is not for the recovery of land and payment of compensation contrary to the endorsement on the Appellants claim before the Court.
“The Appellants action questioned the validity of the 1st – 3rd Respondents action to revoke the title to plot 3119 Maitama, Abuja under a non-existent law and without payment of compensation.
“The learned trial Judge of the lower court erred in Law when he awarded cost of N500,000.00 in favour of the 4th Respondent who is neither a proper party nor necessary party before the Court.
“Section 28 of the Land Use Act LFN 2004 stipulates conditions under which a property of a citizen of Nigeria can be revoked among which is for outriding public interest.
“The 4th respondent is a Private Limited Liability Company incorporated under the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020 and was incorporated for the purpose of making profit; and therefore not for overriding public interest.
“The revocation of the Appellants title to plot 3119 Maitama, Abuja and the subsequent sale to the 4th respondent during the pendency of a proceedings in Court is in violation of the extant law.
“The Appellants have no claim against the 4th respondent from the Originating Summons.
The 4th Respondent decided to join the action of the Appellants even when the Appellants have no claim against her.
“The Appellants pray the Court of Appeal to allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Lower court delivered on the 19th day of July, 2024 by Justice Peter Lifu.”
Alternatively, they prayed the appellate court to invoke section 15 of its Act, to hear and determine their case as a court of first instance.
Meanwhile, no date has been fixed for the matter to be heard.
It will be recalled that Justice Lifu had in his judgement, dismissed the case on the premise that it had become statute barred as at the time it was filed in 2015.
He further held that going by the documents before the court, the plaintiffs, lacked the locus standi (legal right) to maintain the action.
The plaintiffs, in their statement of claim, told the court that the then Minister of the FCT, Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, had instructed them to submit the Certificate of Occupancy in their possession for re-certification.
They claimed that the 2nd plaintiff, Mohammed, promptly complied with the directive by delivering the Certificate of Occupancy to the FCDA with the acknowledgement copy issued to him.
According to them, while they waited for the new Certificate of Occupancy to be issued to them, Mohammed, received a letter notifying them that the Certificate of Occupancy had been revoked without any reason adduced in the letter that conveyed the information.
The plaintiffs argued that no compensation was offered to them as required by the law.
Therefore, they prayed the court to declare as unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, null and void and of no effect, the purported revocation of the property.
More so, they prayed the court to hold that their original Certificate of Occupancy was valid and subsisting since it was revoked without reason or payment of adequate compensation.
They equally sought an order of injunction prohibiting the defendants from taking any further step on the disputed revocation, as well as the award of N500million to them as damages to be paid by the defendants.
However, all the defendants urged the court to dismiss the suit for want of merit.
Deciding the matter last Monday, Justice Lifu, noted that the cause of action in the matter arose on February 3, 2006, when the Certificate of Occupancy was revoked, while the suit was filed in May 2015, about nine years after the revocation.
He stressed that the litigants ought to have approached the court within three months after the cause of action arose.
Justice Lifu also agreed with the 4th Defendant, Salamed Ventures Ltd, that the Abacha property was lawfully revoked having breached agreements in the Right of Occupancy by erecting structures without first obtaining building plans.
Aside from dismissing the case, the court ordered the Abacha family to pay Salamed Ventures the sum of N500, 000 to cover the cost of the litigation.(Vanguard)
