•Late former Head of State, General Sani Abacha
The family of the late military head of state, General Sani Abacha, yesterday approached the Court of Appeal, Abuja division, to void and set aside Justice Peter Lifu’s judgment dismissing a property suit the family brought before the lower court.
Justice Lifu dismissed the suit the family instituted against the Federal Government on Monday, July 22, 2024, challenging the propriety of revocation of the property of the former military head of state, reports The PUNCH.
In the judgment, Lifu predicated the dismissal on various grounds, among which were that the suit had become statute-barred when it was filed in 2015 and that those who initiated the case had no locus standi (legal power) to do so.
Abacha’s wife, Mariam Abacha, and son, Mohammed Abacha, dissatisfied with this judgment, approached the Appeal Court claiming that the federal government revoked their ownership of the property and sold it to a private company, Salamed Ventures Limited, without their knowledge or compensation.
The family, in the appeal, sued the President, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, and two others for alleged unlawful revocation of the property located in the Maitama district in Abuja at the
The notice of appeal filed by Reuben Atabo (SAN) on behalf of the appellants (Mariam and son), predicated on 11 grounds and two major reliefs, prayed the Appeal Court to invoke section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to take over the legal battle as a court of first instance and do justice to the matter.
The respondents in the appeal are the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Federal Capital Development Authority, President, Federal Republic of Nigeria and Salamed Ventures Limited.
The appellants in their notice of appeal against the judgment of the high court, contended that Justice Lifu erred in law in his findings and conclusions in their case on the property.
According to them, Mohammed Abacha, the 1st appellant disclosed his status as the eldest surviving son of the late General Sani Abacha while the 2nd appellant, Mariam Abacha also disclosed her capacity in the suit as the widow of the late General Sani Abacha.
They claimed that they have the locus standi to institute the action either with or without Letters of Administration to the property of the former head of state.
Among other things, they stated that Justice Lifu erred in law when he held that their claims 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 also 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 the Land Use Act to recover land, contrary to the decision of the Court of Appeal, which held that the proper Court to handle such a case is the Federal High Court.
Other grounds are that Justice Lifu erred in law when the ‘suo motu’ held that they had no locus standing to file the suit on behalf of the Estate of the late General 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.
They argued 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 the 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.
“The Certificate of Occupancy upon which the 4th Respondent claims the 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 disputes between individuals and government or government agencies. Where a party to a proceeding transfers title to the property in a dispute, such attitude is an affront to the authority of our Courts, and the 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 of the Appellant’s claim before the Court.
“The Appellant’s action questioned the validity of the 1st – 3rd Respondent’s 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 4th Respondent, who is neither a proper party nor necessary party before the Court.”
