Abacha’s Family Appeals Federal High Court Ruling On Revoked Abuja Property

The family of late General Sani Abacha, Nigeria’s former Head of State, has appealed a Federal High Court ruling that dismissed their lawsuit challenging the revocation of their Abuja property.

Former First Lady, Hajia Mariam Sani Abacha and her son, Mohammed Sani Abacha, are asking the Court of Appeal to void and set aside the judgment, which they claim was erroneous and miscarried justice.

The Abacha family is praying the appellate court to void and set aside the judgment of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, which dismissed their claim on the property.

They argue that the revocation was unlawful and that Justice Lifu erred in law and miscarried justice in his findings and conclusions in their case on the property.

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.

The appeal filed by Reuben Atabo, SAN, is predicated on 11 grounds, including the trial judge’s alleged errors in law and miscarriage of justice in suit No: FCT/HC/CV/317/2006.

The Abacha family claims that the judge erred 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 case is the Federal High Court.

Other grounds are that Justice Lifu erred in law when he suo motu held that their claim was statute-barred and that they lacked locus standing 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 1999.

According to them, Mohammed Sani Abacha, the 1st Appellant, disclosed his status as the eldest surviving son of the late General Sani Abacha while the 2nd Appellant, Mariam Sani Abacha, also disclosed her capacity in the suit as the Widow of the Late General Sani Abacha.

They claimed that they were sufficiently clothed with the capacity to institute the action either with or without letters of Administration to the property of the late Army General.

The notice of appeal read: “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 Courts must 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 by Section 28 of the Land Use Acts.

“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 Appellants 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 the 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 the outriding public interest.

“The 4th respondent is a Private Limited Liability Company incorporated under the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020 and was incorporated to make a profit; and therefore not for overriding public interest.

“The revocation of the Appellant title to plot 3119 Maitama, Abuja and the subsequent sale to the 4th respondent during the pendency of proceedings in Court violates 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 had no claim against her.

“The Appellants pray to 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.”

The Court of Appeal has yet to fix a date for the hearing of the appeal.

Send Us A Press Statement Advertise With Us Contact

 And For More Nigerian News Visit GWG.NG