T he family of the late military Head of State, General Sani Abacha, has filed an appeal challenging the recent revocation of their property in Abuja’s upscale Maitama district. The appeal, submitted to the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, targets President Bola Tinubu, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Nyesom Wike, and the Federal Capital Territory Development Authority (FCDA).
Hajia Maryam Abacha and her eldest surviving son, Mohammed Abacha, are seeking the return of the property, which they claim was unlawfully seized. The Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) for the property, identified as FCT/ABUKN 2478 and issued on June 25, 1993, was revoked and handed over to Salamed Ventures Limited.
The appeal seeks to overturn a July 19 ruling by the Federal High Court in Abuja, which stripped the Abacha family of their property rights. Their legal team, led by Dr. R. O. Atabo, SAN, argues that Justice Peter Lifu erred by upholding the dismissal of their claim. The claim had previously been struck out by the High Court of the FCT and the Court of Appeal in 2009 and 2015 due to jurisdictional issues.
The Abacha family contends that the Federal High Court is the appropriate venue for this case and that they were denied the chance to argue their legal standing. They dispute the trial court’s ruling that their suit was statute-barred, noting they filed their case on May 25, 2015, shortly after the appellate court’s decision on May 18, 2015.
They also challenge the trial court’s recognition of Salamed Ventures Limited as a respondent, alleging that the property’s title was transferred unlawfully while their original case was pending. Citing Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution, they argue that judicial powers are vested in the courts to resolve disputes between individuals and government entities. They claim that transferring property title during ongoing litigation undermines judicial authority and contravenes established law.
Furthermore, the Abacha family asserts that the revocation of their property was invalid as it did not comply with Section 28 of the Land Use Act and was not executed in the public interest, given that Salamed Ventures is a private entity. They criticize the trial court for awarding costs to Salamed Ventures and request that the appellate court either set aside the lower court’s judgment or hear their case as a court of first instance.
The matter is pending a hearing schedule. Justice Lifu had previously dismissed the case, citing a late filing and lack of merit. The court also noted breaches of agreements related to the Right of Occupancy, including unauthorized construction on the property, and ordered the Abacha family to pay N500,000 in litigation costs to Salamed Ventures.
0 Comments