 |
Court Dismisses Abacha Family’s N500m Suit Against Nigerian Government Over Abuja Property |
A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the family of the late Head of State, General Sani Abacha, against the federal government. The family challenged the revocation of the former military ruler's property located in the Maitama District of Abuja.
Justice Peter Lifu dismissed the case, which was filed nine years ago, in which the Abacha family sought the return of their father’s mansions on Osara Close in Maitama and N500 million in compensation.
In his judgment, Justice Lifu cited several reasons for the dismissal, including that the suit was statute-barred when it was filed in 2015 and that the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing to initiate the case.
The lawsuit was filed by Mohammed Sani Abacha, the eldest surviving son of the former military ruler, and his widow, Hajia Maryam Abacha, on behalf of the estate's executors.
The defendants in the suit included the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (MFCT), the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA), the President of Nigeria, and Salamed Ventures Limited.
This dismissal marks the fourth time the Abacha family has lost legal battles over the property, having previously lost twice at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and once at the Court of Appeal in Abuja due to jurisdiction issues.
When the case was brought to the Federal High Court, the Abacha family requested the court to nullify and set aside the revocation of the Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) for the late General Abacha's property.
The family argued that the Certificate of Occupancy, marked FCT/ABUKN 2478 and covering Plot 3119, issued on June 25, 1993, was illegally revoked by the defendants on January 16, 2006, in violation of Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution and Section 28 of the Land Use Act.
In their statement of claims, the Abacha family stated that between 2004 and 2005, the FCT under Nasir El-Rufai instructed them to submit the Certificate of Occupancy for re-certification.
They claimed that Mohammed Sani Abacha complied with the directive by submitting the Certificate of Occupancy to the FCDA and received an acknowledgment copy.
While waiting for a new Certificate of Occupancy, the plaintiffs asserted that Mohammed Abacha received a letter on February 3, 2006, notifying them that the Certificate of Occupancy had been revoked without any reason given.
The Abacha family also alleged that they were not paid adequate compensation for the revocation.
The family asked Justice Lifu to declare the revocation of the property unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, null, and void, and sought an order to set aside the revocation and declare their Certificate of Occupancy valid and subsisting.
The plaintiffs also requested an injunction to prevent the defendants from taking any further action on the disputed property and demanded N500 million in damages.
However, the defendants, in their counter-affidavits and preliminary objections, requested the outright dismissal of the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/463/2016.
Specifically, the 4th defendant, Salamed Ventures Limited, represented by James Ogwu Onoja SAN, argued that the suit was statute-barred, having not been filed within three months of the cause of action as required by law, thus removing the court's jurisdiction.
Onoja SAN submitted that the suit was caught by the provisions of the Public Officers Protection Act and had become a mere academic exercise, asking the judge to dismiss it for being frivolous and lacking in merit.
The senior lawyer stated that Salamed Ventures Limited became the owners of the disputed property upon its purchase from the federal government for N595 million and the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy number 181dw-3adcz-721r-15a8-10 on May 25, 2011.
In his judgment, Justice Lifu agreed with Onoja SAN 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 beyond the three months allowed by law.
Additionally, the judge held that the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing to file the case as they failed to present their letters of administration to the estate as required by law and as proof of their claim as administrators.
Justice Lifu also agreed with Salamed Ventures that the Abacha property was lawfully revoked due to breaches in the covenants in the Right of Occupancy by erecting structures without first obtaining building plans.
The judge then dismissed the suit and ordered the Abacha family to pay Salamed Ventures N500,000 as the cost of litigation.
