The family of the late Nigerian military leader, General Sani Abacha, has taken their legal fight to the Court of Appeal in Abuja. This move follows the dismissal of their property case by Justice Peter Lifu on July 22, 2024.
The Abacha family is seeking to overturn this decision and reclaim a property in Abuja that they allege was unlawfully taken by the Federal Government.
Justice Lifu dismissed the Abacha family’s suit based on two primary reasons: the case was filed too late, becoming “statute-barred,” and the family members who brought the case lacked the legal standing to do so. The case was initially filed in 2015, but according to the judgment, the statute of limitations had already expired.
Dissatisfied with this outcome, Mariam Abacha, the widow of General Sani Abacha, and her son, Mohammed Abacha, have filed an appeal. They argue that the Federal Government took their property and sold it to Salamed Ventures Limited without notifying them or offering compensation.
The appeal, filed by their lawyer, Reuben Atabo (SAN), lists 11 grounds for contesting the previous judgment. The family seeks the Appeal Court’s intervention to take over the case and deliver justice.
The respondents in this appeal include the President, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA), and Salamed Ventures Limited.
In their notice of appeal, the Abacha family asserts that Justice Lifu made several legal errors in his ruling. They argue that both Mohammed Abacha, as the eldest son, and Mariam Abacha, as the widow, have the right to bring the case forward, regardless of whether they have formal administration letters for the estate.
The family also disputes Justice Lifu’s interpretation of the Land Use Act. They claim the Federal High Court should have jurisdiction over land recovery cases, as supported by previous Court of Appeal decisions.
“The Certificate of Occupancy upon which the 4th Respondent claims the 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 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 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 of the Appellant’s claim before the Court.
“The Appellant’s action questioned the validity of the 1st – 3rd Respondent’s 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 a cost of N500,000.00 in favour of the 4th Respondent, who is neither a proper party nor necessary party before the Court.”
