The Federal High Court in Abuja dismissed has thrown out a suit by the family of the Late Head of State, General Sani Abacha, over the Nigerian government’s revocation of their landed property in the Maitama District of Abuja.
Delivering judgement on Monday, Justice Peter Lifu held that the case filed nine years ago was statute-barred, having been filed in May 2015, although the cause of action arose in February 2006 when the Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) was revoked.
The suit had been brought by the widow, Maryam Abacha, and her eldest surviving son, Mohammed Abacha, but was finally disposed of on Monday.
In it, they alleged that the Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) marked FCT/ABUKN 2478, covering their mansion at Plot 3119 and issued on 25 June 1993, was unlawfully revoked by the defendants.
The revocation occurred in February 2006 during the time of Nasir el-Rufai as the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and almost eight years after the dictator’s demise.
In their suit, the family sought the return of the property at Osara Close in Maitama, Abuja and N500 million for the alleged illegal revocation.
Defendants in the suit were the FCT Minister, the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA), the Nigerian President, and Salamed Ventures Limited, who later acquired the property.
The Judge said the filing came outside the legal timeframe for challenging the action of a public officer.
The Judge also found the plaintiffs lacked locus standi, as they failed to present letters of administration for the estate.
He ruled that the property revocation was lawful due to breaches of the Right of Occupancy’s covenants, including constructing buildings without approved plans.
The court ordered the Abacha family to pay N500 million in litigation costs to Salamed Ventures Limited.
In their statement of claims, the Abacha family members said that the then Minister of FCT and would-be governor of Kaduna State, Mr El-Rufai, had instructed them to submit the C of O in their possession for re-certification.
They claimed that Mohammed Sani Abacha, the second plaintiff, promptly complied with the directive by delivering the C of O to the FCDA, and an acknowledgement copy was issued to him.
While waiting for a new C of O to be issued to them, Mohammed Abacha said he received a letter on 3 February 2006 notifying them that the C of O had been revoked without any reason adduced in the letter.
Besides failing to give any reason for the revocation, the government Abacha family alleged that adequate compensation was not paid as required by law.
The family, through their lawyer, Reuben Atabo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), sued the Nigerian government and other defendants to declare as unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, null and void and of no effect the revocation of the property.
According to the plaintiffs, the C of O issued to the late Head of State in June 1993 was revoked without explanation in February 2006, violating the Nigerian constitution and the Land Use Act.
They sought an order from the court to set aside the purported revocation and hold that their C of O remains valid because its revocation was done without adequate compensation.
The plaintiffs asked the court for an order of injunction prohibiting the defendants from taking further steps on the disputed revocation.
Similarly, they prayed for an award of N500 million as damages.
However, in their separate counter-affidavits and preliminary objections, the defendants asked for an outright dismissal of the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/463/2016.
The defendants claimed that the suit had become statute-barred when the plaintiffs filed it, having not been filed within the time allowed by law, among other arguments.
Salamed Ventures’sVentures’s lawyer, James Onoja, a SAN, argued that the suit was a mere academic exercise, lacking merit. He noted that Salamed Ventures acquired the property from the government for $1.3 million and held a valid C of O issued in May 2011.
Although some of the defendants were not in court in May proceedings, the Judge, Mr Lifu, invoked the rule of the court in adopting their processes already filed.
The court upheld the Nigerian government’s and other defendants’ objections in its judgement on Monday.
It was the fourth major legal defeat the Abacha family has suffered in their beat to reclaim the property.
They lost twice at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory and once at the Court of Appeal in Abuja, all on jurisdictional grounds.
