Justice Hamza Muazu of an Abuja High Court sitting at Maitama, yesterday, berated authorities of the Federal Capital Territory Administration for disobeying an order of the court that restrained them from demolishing an estate owned by Praco International Ltd.
The multi-billion naira estate located in the Asokoro/Kugbo axis of the FCT is being developed by SNECOU Group and others, reports Vanguard.
The judge was reacting to recent developments arising from a suit by Success Obioma, Praco International Ltd, Psalm 127 Ltd, and Peace Be Still Ltd, (Claimants) against the FCT Administration.
Defendants in the suit marked FCT/HC/CV/1739/ 24 and motion No: M/5827/2024, are the FCT Minister, Federal Capital Development Authority, The Deed Registrar FCDA, Director Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Chairman Abuja Metropolitan Management Council and the Director of Land Administration FCT, etc.
Justice Eleojor Enenche of the high court had on March 22, 2024, made an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants/respondents by themselves or their servants, agents, privies, proxies or whosoever acting on their express or presume authority from further demolishing or destroying Claimants developments which include but not limited to infrastructure and house, on Plots 582 Kukwaba, 542 Kukwaba, 454 Guzape, 455 Guzape, Plot 456 Guzape, 458 Guzape, 1577 Guzape, 4577 Maitama Aé Ltd, 5044 Maitama Aé, 3198 Maitama Aé, 5033 Maitama and Aé, 2444 Gwarinpa.
However, while the order was subsisting, FCDA officials, on March 27, 2024, demolished the property.
Miffed by the action of the FCT authorities, the developer, yesterday approached the court to obtain an order further extending by another seven days, the injunctive interim order against the defendants.
Justice Muazu, sitting as a vacation judge, expressed dismay at the action of the defendants given the pendency of the matter in court.
After listening to the application by the Claimant’s lawyer, J. K Matthew, the court compelled the FCT Authorities to write an undertaking through their lawyers that they would not take further action capable of affecting the subject matter of the litigation.
The court warned the parties to maintain the status quo, pending the determination of the case.
