The family of late General Sani Abacha petitioned the Court of Appeal, Abuja division, on Tuesday to overturn and set aside Justice Peter Lifu’s decision rejecting a property action filed by the family at the lower court.
On Monday, July 22, 2024, Justice Lifu dismissed the Abachab family’s lawsuit against the Federal Government, which challenged the validity of the previous Military Head of State’s property revocation.
In the ruling, Lifu based the rejection on several reasons, including the fact that the complaint had been statute-barred when it was filed in 2015 and that individuals who launched the case lacked locus standi (legal standing).
Abacha’s wife, Mariam Abacha, and son, Mohammed Abacha, were unsatisfied with the decision and moved the Appeal Court, claiming that the federal government had revoked their ownership of the property and sold it to a private business, 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 the alleged illegal revocation of the property located in the Maitama part of Abuja.
Reuben Atabo (SAN) filed a notice of appeal on behalf of the appellants (Mariam and son) on 11 grounds and two major reliefs, requesting that the Appeal Court 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 to the appeal are the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, the Federal Capital Development Authority, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and Salamed Ventures Limited.
In their notice of appeal against the high court’s judgement, the appellants claimed that Justice Lifu made legal errors in his findings and conclusions in their property dispute.
According to them, Mohammed Abacha, the first appellant, reported his status as the eldest surviving son of the late General Sani Abacha, and Mariam Abacha, the second appellant, disclosed her capacity in the matter as the late General Sani Abacha’s widow.
They asserted that they have the locus standi to bring the action, with or without Letters of Administration, over the former head of state’s property.
Among other things, they claimed that Justice Lifu erred in law when he ruled that their claims at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory in suit No. FCT/HC/CV/317/2006 and the Court of Appeal in appeal No. CA/A/197/2010 were dismissed, despite the fact that they were struck out for lack of jurisdiction. National protest: SGF and ministers hold an emergency meeting today.
The appellants also claimed that the judge erred in law when he cited Section 39 of the Land Use Act to conclude that the Federal High Court lacks jurisdiction under the Land Use Act to recover land, contradicting the Court of Appeal’s decision, which held that the Federal High Court is the proper court to handle such a case.
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 late General Abacha’s estate and decided the case without calling on parties to address the Court, which violated the principles of fair hearing enshrined in Section 36 of the 1999.
They maintained that the judge made a legal error in ruling that their lawsuit was statute-barred at the expense of the Public Officers Protection Act’s exceptions.
According to them, the originating summons leading to this immediate appeal was filed at the Federal High Court on May 25, 2015, following the Court of Appeal’s decision on May 18, 2015, and the judge neglected to indicate in his judgement where their cause of action terminated.
They further accused the judge of making a legal error in recognising Salamed Ventures Limited as the fourth respondent who derived title to their property in dispute while the case between the FCT Minister and the Federal Capital Development Administration was pending.
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 judgement where their cause of action lapsed.
They also faulted the judge for erring in law when he recognised Salamed Ventures Limited as the 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 the 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.”
