Nigeria's previous First Woman, Hajia Mariam Sani Abacha and her child, Mohammed Sani Abacha, have founded a claim against the President, Pastor of the Government Capital Region, Nyesom Wike and two others under the watchful eye of the Court of Allure in Abuja looking for recuperation of a supposed unlawfully disavowed property of previous Head of State, Late Broad Sani Abacha.
The property situated in the Maitama Locale of Abuja was repudiated by the National Government and offered to a privately owned business, Salamed Adventures Restricted, without the information on the Abacha family, the family claims.
The Abacha family is requesting the Court from Appeal to void and save the judgment of Equity Peter Lifu of the Government High Court, Abuja, which on May 19, 2024, excused their suit on the property.
Also read: Trump Shooter Searched Online For Info On John F. Kennedy Assassination A Week Before Rally, FBI Says
Recorded as first to fourth respondents in the allure are the Pastor of the Government Capital Domain (MFCT), Bureaucratic Capital Improvement Authority (FCDA), President, Administrative Republic of Nigeria and Salamed Adventures Restricted.
Mrs Abacha and her child, for the family, in their notification of allure against the judgment of the Great Court, held that Equity Lifu failed in regulation and prematurely delivered equity in his discoveries and ends for their situation on the property.
The notification of allure recorded by Reuben Atabo, SAN, for their benefit was predicated on 11 grounds and two significant reliefs.
The suit guaranteed that Equity Lifu failed in regulation when he held that their case at the High Court of the Government Capital Domain in suit No: FCT/HC/CV/317/2006 and that of the Court of Allure in Allure No: CA/A/197/2010 were excused though they were struck out for absence of locale.
The appellants said that the adjudicator failed in regulation when he depended on Area 39 of the Land Use Act to hold that the Government High Court has no ward under Land Use Act to recuperate land in opposition to the choice of the Court of Allure which held that the legitimate court to deal with such case is the Administrative High Court.
Different grounds are that Equity Lifu failed in regulation when he held that they have no locus standi to document the suit for the Home of late Broad Sani Abacha and chose the case without approaching gatherings to address the court, in opposition to the standards of fair hearing as cherished in Segment 36 of the 1999.
As per the suit, Mohammed Sani Abacha, the first Litigant, revealed his status as the oldest enduring child of late Broad Sani Abacha while the second Appealing party, Mariam Sani Abacha, likewise unveiled her ability in the suit as the Widow of Late Broad Sani Abacha.
They asserted that they have sufficient ability to establish the activity either regardless of letters of Organization to the property of the late Armed force General.
They likewise blamed the Adjudicator for failing in regulation when he perceived Salamed Adventures restricted as fourth respondent who determined title to their property in question during the pendency of their case between the FCT Clergyman and the Government Capital Advancement Organization.
As per them, involved with a procedure can't move title to an outsider during the pendency of an activity adding that the first - third Respondents purportedly offered the property in question to the fourth Respondent during the procedures of their suit which started on Walk 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.”
.jpg)
Comments