ABACHA’S FAMILY DRAGS TINUBU AND WIKE TO APEAL COURT FOR ILLEGAL REVOCATION OF LAND

The family of the deceased military Head of State, General Sani Abacha, has filed an 11-ground appeal against President Bola Tinubu and the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, in response to the revocation of their property located in the upscale Maitama district of Abuja. The appeal was lodged with the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, with representation from the late military leader’s wife, Hajia Maryam Abacha, and her eldest surviving son, Mohammed. The family is seeking the return of the property, arguing that the Certificate of Occupancy for the property, which covers plot 3119 and was issued on June 25, 1993, was unlawfully revoked by the Respondents and transferred to a company named Salamed Ventures Limited.

In addition to President Tinubu and Mr. Wike, the Federal Capital Territory Development Authority (FCDA) is also named as a Respondent in the case.

The Abacha family’s legal team, led by Dr. R. O. Atabo, SAN, is requesting the appellate court to overturn the Federal High Court judgement delivered on July 19, which resulted in them losing ownership of the property. It was argued by the Appellants that their claim to the property had been previously dismissed by both the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, and the Court of Appeal in 2009 and 2015, respectively. The Appellants contended that the two courts simply struck out the case on the basis that the FCT High Court lacked the necessary jurisdiction to hear it.

The Appellants maintain that, contrary to the ruling of Justice Lifu, the appellate court emphasized that only the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to decide on the matter. Additionally, they allege that although Justice Lifu himself raised the issue of their lack of locus standi (legal right) to file the case, he did not allow the parties to present arguments on the matter. Furthermore, the Appellants criticized the trial court for ruling that their suit had become statute barred. They argue that while the appellate court issued its previous judgment on May 18, 2015, they filed the current case on May 25, 2015.

The appellants also criticized the Judge for his error in law in recognizing Salamed Ventures Limited as the fourth respondent who acquired title to their disputed property during the course of their case between the FCT Minister and the FCDA. They argued that a party involved in a legal proceeding cannot transfer title to a third party while the case is ongoing, and highlighted that the first to third respondents allegedly sold the disputed property to the fourth respondent during the progress of their lawsuit that began on March 1, 2006. The Certificate of Occupancy on which the fourth respondent bases their title was issued by the first to third respondents on May 25, 2011, during the appeal of the appellants to the Court of Appeal in appeal No: CA/A/197/2010.

According to Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution, “the judicial powers are vested in our courts, and it is the responsibility of the courts to resolve disputes between individuals and government entities or agencies. The act of a party transferring title to a disputed property during legal proceedings is a challenge to the authority of our courts and will not be tolerated”, Dr. Atabo (SAN) stated.