The wife of the late General Sani Abacha, Dr. Maryam Abacha, and her son, Mohammed Sani Abacha have lodged an appeal before the Court of Appeal seeking to void a Federal High Court judgment in a dispute over an Abuja property.
Listed as respondents to the appeal are the minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA), President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and Salamed Ventures Limited.
Mrs. Abacha and her son had, in a bid to recover the late Abacha’s property at Plot 3119 Maitama (A6) District, Abuja, sued at the Federal High Court in Abuja on behalf of themselves and administrators of the estate of the late Gen. Sani Abacha.
In the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/463/2015, the plaintiffs claimed that sometime in the ’90s, the late Abacha applied and was granted a certificate of occupancy over a parcel of land at Plot 3119 Maitama (A6) District Abuja, which was revoked by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) via a letter dated January 16, 2006.
They faulted the revocation and urged the court to either reverse it or order that they be paid compensation.
In his judgment on July 19, Justice Peter Lifu held among others, that the suit was statute-barred and that the plaintiffs lacked the locus standi (the right) to file the suit, a decision Mrs. Abacha and Mohammed have now appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Read Also; US Secret Service director resigns over Trump assassination attempt
In their 11-ground notice of appeal, filed by their lawyer, Reuben Atabo (SAN), Mrs. Abacha and Mohammed faulted Justice Lifu’s judgment and prayed the Court of Appeal to set it aside.
They are also praying for the Court of Appeal to void the sale of the property to a third party and the subsequent certificate of occupancy issued to the alleged buyer.
The appellants want the court to invoke its power under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to hear and determine their substantive originating summons on merit since the Federal High Court failed to hear it on merit.
The appellants argued that the Federal High Court erred when it held that their earlier suit on the issue at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) marked: FCT/HC/CV/317/2006 and their subsequent appeal, marked: CA/A/197/2010 were dismissed whereas they were struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
They also faulted the trial court for relying on Section 39 of the Land Use Act to hold that the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction under the Land Use Act to recover land, contrary to the earlier decision of the Court of Appeal, which held that the proper court to handle their case is the Federal High Court.
Other grounds are that the trial court erred in law when it suo motu (on its own) held that they had 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 on the issue, contrary to the principles of fair hearing as enshrined in Section 36 of 1999.
The appellants argued that, contrary to the trial court’s position, the first appellant (Mohammed) disclosed his status as the eldest surviving son of late General Sani Abacha, while the second appellant, Mrs. Abacha equally disclosed her capacity in the suit as the widow of late General Sani Abacha.
Mrs. Abacha and Mohammed claimed that they were sufficiently clothed with the capacity to institute the suit, either with or without letters of administration to the property of the late Gen. Abacha.
They also faulted the trial court for holding that their suit was statute-barred at the expense of the exceptions to the applicability of the Public Officers Protection Act.
The appellants noted that their originating summons leading to the appeal was filed at the Federal High Court on May 25, 2015, after the Court of Appeal’s decision of May 18, 2015, adding that the lower court failed to disclose in his judgment when their cause of action lapsed.
They also faulted the lower court for recognizing Salamed Ventures Ltd, who purportedly derived title to the property in dispute during the pendency of the case.
The appellants argued that it is the law that a party to a proceeding cannot transfer title to a third party during the pendency of an action.
They added that the first to third respondents (FCT Minister, FCDA, and President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria) purportedly sold the property in dispute to the fourth respondent (Salamed Ventures) during the pendency of their suit which commenced on March 1, 2006.
The appellants noted that the certificate of occupancy, upon which the fourth respondent claims the title, was issued to it by the first to the third respondent on the 25th day of May 2011 during the pendency of their appeal to the Court of Appeal.
They stated that by Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution, judicial powers are vested in courts and it is the duty of courts to determine disputes between individuals and government or government agencies.
They added: “Where a party to a proceeding transfers title to the 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 Use Act.
“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 first to third 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 a cost of N500,000.00 in favour of the fourth 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 the outriding public interest.
“The fourth respondent is a private limited liability company incorporated under the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020 and was incorporated for the purpose of making a 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 fourth respondent during the pendency of proceedings in court is in violation of the extant law.
“The appellants have no claim against the fourth respondent from the originating summons.
The fourth respondent decided to join the action of the appellants even when the appellants have no claim against her,” the appellants said.