A court has dismissed the Abacha family’s N500m lawsuit against the Nigerian government over an Abuja property. Discover the full story here.
The family of the late Head of State, General Sani Abacha had filed a lawsuit against the federal government over revocation of the property belonging to him situated in Abuja’s Maitama District. However, their suit was dismissed by a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja.
The lawsuit, filed nine years ago by Abacha family members seeking the return of their father’s mansions located at Osara Close in Maitama and N500M compensation, was dismissed by Justice Peter Lifu.
Justice Lifu based the dismissal on multiple reasons, including statutory limitation since its filing in 2015 and lack of legal authority by those who initiated it.
On behalf of the executors of the late military general’s estate, Mohammed Sani Abacha – eldest surviving son of the former military ruler – and Hajia Maryam Abacha filed a suit.
The Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (MFCT), Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA), President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and Salamed Ventures Limited are identified as defendants one through four in the lawsuit.
The family had previously suffered legal losses on the property four times, with two defeats in the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and one in Abuja’s Court of Appeal due to jurisdictional issues. This latest dismissal of their suit marks the fourth defeat for them.
The Abacha family, along with others, requested the Federal High Court to invalidate and cancel the revocation of late General Abacha’s property Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) when they transferred their legal battle there.
The family’s primary complaint was that the revocation of Certificate of Occupancy with reference FCT/ABUKN 2478 for Plot 3119, which had been issued on June 25th,1993, by the defendants on January16th,2006 was illegal and unconstitutional. This act violated Section44ofthe1999 Constitution as well as Section28oftheLand Use Act.
The Abacha family stated in their claim that they were directed by Nasir El-Rufai’s FCT to present the Certificate of Occupancy they possessed for re-certification from 2004 to 2005.
According to their statement, the second plaintiff known as Mohammed Sani Abacha immediately obeyed the instruction by submitting the Certificate of Occupancy to FCDA and in turn received a confirmation copy.
As they waited for a fresh Certificate of Occupancy to be issued, the plaintiffs claimed that on February 3, 2006 Mohammed Abacha received a letter informing them that their existing certificate had been revoked with no reason given in said correspondence.
The Abacha family claimed that not only was there a lack of explanation for the revocation, but also insufficient compensation had been provided.
Consequently, the family implored Justice Lifu to deem the revocation of their property as unconstitutional, unlawful and nullified; additionally they requested a reversal order and recognition that their Certificate of Occupancy remains valid.
The plaintiffs demanded an injunction to prohibit the defendants from proceeding with any action regarding the contested property. Additionally, they insisted on a compensation of N500M from the defendants as damages.
The defendants requested the complete dismissal of case FHC/ABJ/CS/463/2016 in their individual counter-affidavits and preliminary objections.
Salamed Ventures Limited, represented by James Ogwu Onoja SAN as its counsel, contended that the lawsuit had become time-barred based on legal provisions. It was argued that since it wasn’t filed within three months of the cause of action allowed by law, which deprived the court’s jurisdiction pertaining to this case.
Onoja SAN contended that the Public Officers Protection Act had rendered the suit meaningless and purely theoretical. Accordingly, he urged the Judge to dismiss it on grounds of frivolity and lack of merit.
According to the senior lawyer, Salamed Ventures Limited acquired ownership of the contested property when they bought it from the federal government for N595M and were given Certificate of Occupancy number 181dw-3adcz-721r-15a8-10 on May 25, 2011.
Justice Lifu concurred with Onoja SAN’s argument that the cause of action originated on February 3, 2006, when the Certificate of Occupancy was revoked. However, since the case wasn’t filed until May 2015 – several years after its revocation and well beyond three months from its appropriate filing date – Justice Lifu agreed that it lacked merit.
Moreover, the judge ruled that due to their inability to submit their letters of administration as evidence of being administrators and in compliance with legal requirements for validating claims, the plaintiffs were deemed lacking locus standi or standing in filing the case.
Salamed Ventures’ assertion that the Abacha property was rightfully confiscated due to violations of occupancy terms through unauthorized construction, specifically without obtaining proper building plans, had also received concurrence from Justice Lifu.
Afterwards, the judge threw out the case and instructed the Abacha family to compensate Salamed Ventures with a sum of N500,000 towards legal expenses.
