By Kayode Lawal Nigeria’s former First Lady, Hajia Mariam Sani Abacha and her son, Mohammed Sani Abacha, have dragged the President,...
By Kayode Lawal
Nigeria’s former First Lady, Hajia Mariam Sani Abacha and
her son, Mohammed Sani Abacha, have dragged the President, Minister of the
Federal Capital Territory and two others before the Court of Appeal in Abuja
seeking recovery of an alleged unlawfully revoked property of former Head of
State, Late General Sani Abacha.
The property located in the Maitama District of Abuja was
said to have been revoked by the Federal Government and sold to a private
company, Salamed Ventures Limited, without the knowledge of the Abacha family.
The Abacha family is praying the Court of Appeal to void and
set aside the judgment of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja,
which on May 19, 2024, dismissed their suit on the property.
Listed as 1st to 4th respondents in the appeal are the
Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (MFCT), Federal Capital Development
Authority (FCDA), President, Federal Republic of Nigeria and Salamed Ventures
Limited.
Mrs Abacha and her son, on behalf of the family, are also
praying the Appellate Court to invoke Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to
take over their legal battle as a court of first instance and do justice to the
matter.
In their notice of appeal against the judgment of the High
Court, the Abacha family held that Justice Lifu erred in law and miscarried
justice in his findings and conclusions in their case on the property.
The notice of appeal filed by Reuben Atabo, SAN, on their
behalf was predicated on 11 grounds and two major reliefs.
Among others, they claimed that Justice Lifu erred in law
when he held that their claim at the High Court of the Federal Capital
Territory in suit No: FCT/HC/CV/317/2006 and that of the Court of Appeal in
Appeal No: CA/A/197/2010 were dismissed whereas they were struck out for lack of
jurisdiction.
The appellants said that the judge erred in law when he
relied on Section 39 of the Land Use Act to hold that the Federal High Court
has no jurisdiction under Land Use Act to recover land contrary to the decision
of the Court of Appeal which held that the proper court to handle such case is
the Federal High Court.
Other grounds are that Justice Lifu erred in law when he suo
motu held that they have no locus standi to file the suit on behalf of the
Estate of late General Sani Abacha and decided the case without calling on
parties to address the court, contrary to the principles of fair hearing as
enshrined in Section 36 of the 1999.
According to them, Mohammed Sani Abacha, the 1st Appellant,
disclosed his status as the eldest surviving son of late General Sani Abacha
while the 2nd Appellant, Mariam Sani Abacha, also disclosed her capacity in the
suit as the Widow of Late General Sani Abacha.
They claimed that they are sufficiently clothed with the
capacity to institute the action either with or without letters of
Administration to the property of the late Army General.
Similarly, the Abacha family said that the judge erred in
law when he held that their case was statute barred at the expense of the
exceptions to the applicability of Public Officers Protection Act.
According to them, the originating summons leading to this
instant appeal was filed at the Federal High Court on May 25, 2015 after the
Court of Appeal decision of May 18, 2015 adding that the judge failed to
disclose in his judgment where their cause of action lapsed.
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 Federal Capital Development Administration.
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 notice of appeal reads, “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 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.”
Justice Lifu had on May 19, dismissed the suit instituted
against the Federal Government by the Abacha family challenging the propriety
of revocation of the property of the former military ruler.
In the judgment, Justice Lifu predicated the dismissal on
various grounds among which are that the suit had become statute barred at the
time it was filed in 2015 and that those who initiated the case have no locus
standi (legal power) to do so.
The judge held that the cause of action arose on February 3,
2006 when the Certificate of Occupancy was revoked while the case was filed in
May 2015, years after the revocation and far more than three months it ought to
have been filed.
He also held that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi to file
the case due to their failure to present as exhibits, their letters of
administration to the Abacha Estate as required by law and as proof of their
claim as the Administrators.
The Abacha family had asked the Judge to nullify and set
aside the revocation of the Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) of the property
of the late General Abacha.
The grouse of the family was that the Certificate of
Occupancy marked FCT/ABUKN 2478 covering Plot 3119 issued on June 25, 1993, was
illegally and unlawfully revoked by the defendants on January 16, 2006 in
breach of section 44 of the 1999 Constitution and section 28 of the Land Use
Act.
No date has been fixed for hearing of the appeal.
No comments