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The property located in the Maitama District of Abuja was said to have been revoked by the Federal Government and sold to a private company, Salamed Ventures Limited, without the knowledge of the Abacha family.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.
