Nigeria’s former first lady, Mariam Sani- Abacha and her son, Mohammed Sani -Abacha have
taken the President, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory and two others to the Court of Appeal in Abuja seeking recovery of the alleged unlawfully revoked property of the late Head of State, General Sani Abacha.
The property located in the Maitama District of Abuja was said to have been revoked by the federal government and sold to a private company, Salamed Ventures Limited without their knowledge or compensation.
The Abacha family is asking the Court of Appeal to void and set aside the judgment of Justice Peter Lifu of the federal high court, Abuja which on May 19, 2024 dismissed their suit on the property.
Abacha and her son on behalf of their family are also praying the Appellate Court to invoke section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to take over their legal battle as a court of first instance and do justice to the matter.
In their notice of appeal against the judgment of the high court, the Abacha family held that justice Lifu erred in law and miscarried justice in his findings and conclusions in their case on the property.
Among others, they claimed that Justice Lifu erred in law when he held that their claim at the Fct High Court were dismissed whereas they were struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Other grounds are that Justice Lifu erred in law when he held that they have no locus standi to file the suit on behalf of the Estate of late General Sani Abacha and decided the case without calling on parties to address the Court contrary to the principles of fair hearing as enshrined in Section 36 of the 1999.
Justice Lifu had on May 19, dismissed the suit instituted against the federal government
by the Abacha family challenging the propriety of revocation of the property of the former Military ruler.
In the judgment, Justice Lifu predicated the dismissal on various grounds among which are that the suit had become statute barred at the time it was filed in 2015 and that those who initiated the case have no locus standi (legal power) to do so.
The Judge held that the cause of action arose on February 3, 2006 when the Certificate of Occupancy was revoked while the case was filed in May 2015, years after the revocation and far more than three months it ought to have been filed.
No date has been fixed yet for hearing of the appeal.
(Editor : Ena Agbanoma)
