The wife of late General Sani Abacha, Hajia Mariam Abacha, and her son, Mohammed, have taken legal action against the President, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, and two others, filing a case with the Court of Appeal in Abuja......Read The Full Article>>.....Read The Full Article>>
They seek the recovery of a property allegedly revoked unlawfully that belonged to the late former Head of State.
The property, located in the Maitama District of Abuja, was said to have been revoked by the Federal Government and sold to a private company, Salamed Ventures Limited, without the Abacha family’s knowledge.
The Abacha family is requesting the Court of Appeal to overturn the decision of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, who dismissed their lawsuit regarding the property on May 19, 2024.
The appeal names the Minister of the FCT, the Federal Capital Development Authority, FCDA, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and Salamed Ventures Limited as the 1st to 4th respondents.
Mariam Abacha and her son, representing the family, are urging the Appellate Court to invoke Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to assume their legal battle as a court of first instance and ensure justice is served.
In their notice of appeal against the High Court’s judgment, the Abacha family argues that Justice Peter Lifu made legal errors and miscarried justice in his findings and conclusions regarding the property.
The notice of appeal, filed by their lawyer Reuben Atabo, SAN, is based on 11 grounds and seeks two major reliefs.
Among their claims, they argue that Justice Lifu erred in law by stating that their claims in the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (suit No: FCT/HC/CV/317/2006) and the Court of Appeal (Appeal No: CA/A/197/2010) were dismissed, while in reality, they were struck out due to lack of jurisdiction.
Additionally, the appellants contend that the judge erred in law by relying on Section 39 of the Land Use Act to assert that the Federal High Court lacks jurisdiction under the Act to recover land, contradicting a decision by the Court of Appeal which stated that the Federal High Court is the proper court to handle such cases.
Other grounds include the claim that Justice Lifu erred in law when he independently determined that they lacked the legal standing to file the suit on behalf of the estate of the late General Sani Abacha, without giving the parties a chance to address the court. This, they argue, violates the principles of fair hearing as outlined in Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.
They assert that Mohammed Sani Abacha, the first appellant, identified himself as the eldest surviving son of the late General Sani Abacha, while the second appellant, Mariam Sani Abacha, presented herself as the widow of the late General. They argue that this status gives them sufficient capacity to initiate the legal action, with or without letters of administration concerning the property of the late Army General.
Additionally, the Abacha family contends that the judge erred in law by declaring their case statute-barred, ignoring exceptions to the Public Officers Protection Act’s applicability.
They state that the originating summons for this appeal was filed at the Federal High Court on May 25, 2015, following the Court of Appeal’s decision on May 18, 2015. They argue that the judge did not specify in his judgment when their cause of action expired.
They also criticized the judge for erring in law by recognizing Salamed Ventures Limited as the 4th respondent, despite the company deriving title to the disputed property while their case was still pending between the FCT Minister and the Federal Capital Development Authority.
They argue that a party involved in a legal proceeding cannot transfer title to a third party during the pendency of the action. According to them, the 1st to 3rd respondents allegedly sold the disputed property to the 4th respondent during the ongoing proceedings of their suit, which began on March 1, 2006.
The notice of appeal reads, “The Certificate of Occupancy upon which the 4th Respondent claims 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 dispute between individuals and government or government agencies. Where a party to a proceeding transfers title to property in a dispute, such attitude is an affront on the authority of our Courts and 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 on the Appellants claim before the Court.
“The Appellants action questioned the validity of the 1st – 3rd Respondents 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 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 outriding public interest.
“The 4th respondent is a Private Limited Liability Company incorporated under the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020 and was incorporated for the purpose of making profit; and therefore not for overriding public interest.
“The revocation of the Appellants title to plot 3119 Maitama, Abuja and the subsequent sale to the 4th respondent during the pendency of proceedings in Court is in violation of 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 have no claim against her.
“The Appellants pray 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.”
On May 19, Justice Lifu dismissed the suit filed by the Abacha family against the Federal Government, which challenged the revocation of property belonging to the former military ruler.
In his judgment, Justice Lifu cited several grounds for dismissal. He stated that the suit was statute-barred when it was filed in 2015 and that those who initiated the case lacked the legal standing (locus standi) to do so.
The judge explained that the cause of action arose on February 3, 2006, when the Certificate of Occupancy was revoked, but the case was not filed until May 2015. This delay exceeded the three-month period within which the case should have been filed.
He also ruled that the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing (locus standi) to file the case because they failed to present their letters of administration for the Abacha Estate as required by law, which would have proven their claim as the estate’s administrators.
The Abacha family had asked the judge to nullify and set aside the revocation of the Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) for the late General Abacha’s property.
Their grievance was that the Certificate of Occupancy, marked FCT/ABUKN 2478 and covering Plot 3119, issued on June 25, 1993, was illegally and unlawfully revoked by the defendants on January 16, 2006, in violation of Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution and Section 28 of the Land Use Act.
No date has been set for the appeal hearing.
