Court Rules On Abacha Family’s Suit Against FG June 27

Court Rules On Abacha Family's Suit Against FG June 27

Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, will on June 27, deliver judgment in a suit by the family of the late head of state, General Sani Abacha.

The family of the late number one military officers in the country is challenging the revocation of the property of their father in the Maitama District of Abuja.

Justice Lifu on Wednesday fixed the judgment date for the suit instituted by wife of the late General Abacha, Hajia Maryam Abacha and her eldest surviving son, Mohammed Sani Abacha.

The defendants in the suit are the minister of the Federal Capital Territory FCT, Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA), President, Federal Republic of Nigeria and Salamed Ventures Limited as 1st to 4th respectively.

The judge fixed the date after the legal battle by Abacha family’s lawyer led by Dr Reuben Okpanachi Atabo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN, and those of the defendants led by Dr James Ogwu Onoja

 

Among others, the Abacha family represented by Maryam Abacha and Mohammed Sani Abacha prayed the Court to nullify and set aside the purported revocation of the Certificate of Occupancy of the property of the late General Sani Abacha located in the Maitama District.

 

The certificate of occupancy marked FCT/ABUKN 2478 covering plot 3119 issued on June 25, 1993 was said by the family to have been illegally and unlawfully revoked by the defendants.

 

In their statement of claims, the Abacha family said that the FCT under 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 Sani Abacha promptly complied with the directive by delivering the Certificate of Occupancy to the FCDA and acknowledgement copy issued to him.

 

While waiting for a new Certificate of Occupancy to be issued to them, plaintiffs asserted that Mohammed Abacha received a letter on February 3, 2006 notifying them that the Certificate of Occupancy had been revoked without any reason adduced in the letter.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*