Nigeria’s former First Lady, Hajia Mariam Sani Abacha, and her son, Mohammed Sani Abacha, have filed a lawsuit against the President, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), and two others at the Court of Appeal in Abuja. They seek the recovery of a property in the Maitama District of Abuja, allegedly unlawfully revoked by the Federal Government and sold to a private company, Salamed Ventures Limited, without their knowledge.
The Abacha family requests the Court of Appeal to overturn the judgment of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, who dismissed their suit regarding the property on May 19, 2024. The Minister of the FCT, the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA), the President of Nigeria, and Salamed Ventures Limited are listed as respondents in the appeal.
Representing the family, Mrs. Abacha and her son also urge the Appellate Court to invoke Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, taking over their legal battle as a court of first instance to deliver justice.
In their notice of appeal, filed by Reuben Atabo, SAN, on 11 grounds and two major reliefs, the Abachas argue that Justice Lifu erred in law and miscarried justice in his findings and conclusions regarding the property. They contend that the High Court’s decision to dismiss their claim was incorrect, as the previous cases at the Federal High Court of the FCT and the Court of Appeal were struck out for lack of jurisdiction, not dismissed.
The appellants assert that Justice Lifu wrongly relied on Section 39 of the Land Use Act to conclude that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction under the Land Use Act to recover land, contrary to the Court of Appeal’s decision. They also argue that the judge erred by ruling that they had no locus standi to file the suit on behalf of General Abacha’s estate without giving the parties a chance to address the court, violating the principles of fair hearing under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.
The Abacha family maintains that they have the legal standing to initiate the action, with Mohammed Sani Abacha being the eldest surviving son and Mariam Sani Abacha being the widow of the late General Sani Abacha. They further argue that the judge erred in ruling that their case was statute-barred, overlooking exceptions to the applicability of the Public Officers Protection Act.
They criticize the judge for recognizing Salamed Ventures Limited, which acquired the property during the pending proceedings, as a legitimate respondent. The appellants emphasize that a party cannot transfer property title during an ongoing legal action, claiming that the property was sold to the fourth respondent while their suit was active.
The notice of appeal states, “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 disputes 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 Use Act.
“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 costs of N500,000.00 in favour of the 4th Respondent, who is neither a proper party nor a 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 overriding 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 a 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 and set aside the judgment of the Lower court delivered on the 19th day of July, 2024, by Justice Peter Lifu.”
Justice Lifu had dismissed the Abacha family’s suit challenging the revocation of the property on various grounds, including that the suit was filed years after the revocation and beyond the statutory period. He also ruled that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing due to their failure to present letters of administration as proof of their claim.
The Abacha family had sought to nullify the revocation of the Certificate of Occupancy for the property, arguing it was illegally revoked in violation of the 1999 Constitution and the Land Use Act.
No date has been set for the hearing of the appeal.
(DailyPost)