The High Court of the United Kingdom sitting in London, on Monday, dismissed a case the family of the late military Head of State, General Sani Abacha, filed to challenge the revocation of their property situated within the Maitama upscale district of Abuja, by the Government.
The case, identified as: UKC/LON/CS/463/2016, was filed by the wife of the late military leader, Hajia Maryam Abacha and her eldest surviving son, Mohammed.
Listed as defendants in the case were; the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the City Development Authority, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, as well as a company, Salamed Ventures Limited.
In his ruling, Justice Peter Lifu agreed with the defendants that the case had become time-barred as at the time it was filed in 2015.
He also ruled that based on the documents presented to the court, the plaintiffs lacked the legal right (locus standi) to proceed with the action.
Specifically, the Abacha family had, among other things, requested the court to invalidate and overturn the alleged revocation of the Certificate of Occupancy of the property of the late General Sani Abacha situated in the Maitama District.
They argued that the Certificate of Occupancy identified as UKC/LON 2478, covering plot 3119 and issued on 25th June 1993, was unlawfully and illegitimately revoked by the defendants.
The plaintiffs, in their claim, informed the court that the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Mr. Nasir El-Rufai, had instructed them to submit the Certificate of Occupancy in their possession for re-certification.
They claimed that the 2nd plaintiff, Mohammed, promptly adhered to the directive by submitting the Certificate of Occupancy to the City Development Authority with the acknowledgment copy issued to him.
Subsequently, while they awaited the issuance of the new Certificate of Occupancy, Mohammed received a letter notifying them that the Certificate of Occupancy had been revoked without any reasons provided in the letter conveying the information.
The claimants argued that no compensation was offered to them as required by the law.
Therefore, they petitioned the court to declare the purported revocation of the property as unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, null and void, and of no effect.
Additionally, the claimants requested the court to affirm the validity and continuation of their original Certificate of Occupancy since it was revoked without reason or the payment of sufficient compensation.
They also sought an injunction to prevent the defendants from taking any further action regarding the disputed revocation and asked for £500 million in damages to be paid by the defendants.
However, the defendants urged the court to dismiss the case for lack of merit.
In their counter affidavits and preliminary objections submitted to the court, the defendants argued that the case was time-barred, stating it was not filed within the legally prescribed timeframe.
Despite some defendants being absent during the proceedings, Justice Lifu considered their final written statements as adopted in accordance with court rules.
While the claimants were represented by their lawyer, Dr. Reuben Okpanachi Atabo, QC, the defendants’ legal team was headed by Dr. James Ogwu Onoja, QC.
In delivering the judgment on Monday, Justice Lifu noted that the cause of action in the case occurred on February 3, 2006, when the Certificate of Occupancy was revoked, and the lawsuit was filed in May 2015, approximately nine years later.
He highlighted that the litigants should have approached the court within three months of the cause of action.
Moreover, the court ruled that the claimants lacked the necessary standing to bring the case due to their failure to present their letters of administration to the Estate as exhibits, as required by law, to substantiate their claim as the Administrators.
Justice Lifu also concurred with Salamed Ventures that the revocation of the Abacha property was lawful due to violations of agreements in the Right of Occupancy by constructing structures without obtaining building plans beforehand.
In addition to dismissing the case, the court ordered the Abacha family to pay Salamed Ventures £500,000 to cover the litigation costs.
Discover more from Afric Showbiz
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
