A Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit instituted against the federal government by the family of the late Head of State, General Sani Abacha, challenging the revocation of the property of the former military ruler located in the Maitama District of Abuja.

Justice Peter Lifu dismissed the suit in a judgement on the case filed nine years ago in which the Abacha family members are demanding the return of their father’s mansions located at Osara Close in Maitama and N500M compensation.

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 suit was filed by Mohammed Sani Abacha, the eldest surviving son of the former military ruler, and the widow, Hajia Maryam Abacha, on behalf of the executors of the estate of the late military general.

Listed as 1st to 4th Defendants in the suit are the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (MFCT), Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA), President, Federal Republic of Nigeria, and Salamed Ventures Limited.

The new dismissal of the suit marked the fourth time the family would lose legal battles on the property in court, having lost twice at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and once at the Court of Appeal in Abuja on grounds of jurisdiction.

Upon shifting the battle to the Federal High Court, the Abacha family, among others, prayed the Court to nullify and set aside the revocation of the Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) of the property of the late General Abacha.

The grouse of the family was that the Certificate of Occupancy marked FCT/ABUKN 2478 covering Plot 3119 issued on June 25, 1993, was illegally and unlawfully revoked by the defendants on January 16, 2006, in breach of Section 44 of the 1999 Constitution and Section 28 of the Land Use Act.

In their statement of claims, the Abacha family said the FCT under Nasir El-Rufai had, between 2004 and 2005, 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 an acknowledgement copy was issued to him.

While waiting for a new Certificate of Occupancy to be issued to them, the 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.

Besides the failure to give any reason for the revocation, the Abacha family alleged that adequate compensation was not paid.

The family, therefore, asked Justice Lifu to declare as unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, null, and void, the revocation of the property and also sought an order setting aside the revocation and holding that their Certificate of Occupancy is valid and subsisting.

The plaintiffs asked for an order of injunction prohibiting the defendants from taking any further steps on the disputed property and to also compel the defendants to pay them N500m as damages.

However, the defendants, in their separate counter-affidavits and preliminary objections, asked for the outright dismissal of the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/463/2016.

Specifically, the 4th defendant, Salamed Ventures Limited, represented by James Ogwu Onoja SAN, argued that the suit, at the time it was instituted, had become statute-barred, having not been filed within three months of the cause of action allowed by law and thus, robbed the court of jurisdiction.

Onoja SAN submitted that the suit was caught by the provisions of the Public Officers Protection Act and had become a mere academic exercise and asked the Judge to dismiss it for being frivolous and lacking in merit.

The senior lawyer said that Salamed Ventures Limited became the owners of the disputed property upon its purchase from the federal government at N595M and issuance of Certificate of Occupancy number 181dw-3adcz-721r-15a8-10 of May 25, 2011.

In his judgment, Justice Lifu agreed with Onoja SAN 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.

Besides, the judge held that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi to file the case upon their failure to present as exhibits their letters of administration to the estate as required by law and as proof of their claim as the administrators.

Justice Lifu also agreed with Salamed Ventures that the Abacha property was lawfully revoked upon breaches in the covenants in the Right of Occupancy by erecting structures without first obtaining building plans.

The judge then dismissed the suit and ordered the Abacha family to pay Salamed Ventures N500,000 as the cost of litigation.