Family challenges court ruling on late military Head of State’s assets

The family of General Sani Abacha, the late military Head of State, has filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal in Abuja, seeking to overturn a high court ruling that upheld the Federal Government’s revocation of their property.

Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday struck down the Abacha family’s lawsuit, upholding the government’s seizure of their Maitama, Abuja property.

Hajia Mariam Abacha, the wife of the late General Sani Abacha, and her son Mohammed Abacha, who are the plaintiffs in the case, argued that the Federal Government’s decision to revoke their property and sell it to Salamed Ventures Limited without their consent or fair compensation was unlawful and unjust.

They urged the court to order the President and the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, who are defendants in the suit, to return the property to them.

However, in his judgment on Monday, Justice Lifu said the suit was statute-barred at the time it was filed in 2015, adding that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to initiate the court action.

Dissatisfied, however, the family has, through their lawyer, Reuben Atabo (SAN), proceeded to the Court of Appeal, seeking to overturn the lower court’s judgment.

In the Notice of Appeal, containing 11 grounds, the Abacha family prayed the appellate court to 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 Abacha family argued that Justice Lifu made a legal error by citing Section 39 of the Land Use Act to rule that the Federal High Court lacks jurisdiction to hear land recovery cases under the Act, contradicting the Court of Appeal’s precedent that the Federal High Court is the appropriate forum for such disputes.

“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 following Section 28 of the land,” the family said.

A hearing date has not been scheduled yet by the court.