A Federal High Court in Abuja has ruled to dismiss a longstanding lawsuit brought by the family of late Head of State, General Sani Abacha, against the Nigerian government. The suit contested the revocation of property located in Abuja’s Maitama District, belonging to the former military ruler.
Justice Peter Lifu delivered the judgment, citing multiple grounds for dismissal, including the statute of limitations and lack of legal standing (locus standi) by the plaintiffs. The lawsuit, initiated nine years ago by Mohammed Sani Abacha and Hajia Maryam Abacha, sought the return of their father’s mansions and N500 million in compensation.
The Abacha family alleged that the revocation of the Certificate of Occupancy in 2006 was unconstitutional and unlawful, pointing to procedural irregularities and inadequate compensation. They argued that the property’s revocation violated constitutional provisions and the Land Use Act.
However, the defendants, including the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory and Salamed Ventures Limited, countered with preliminary objections, asserting that the suit had become time-barred and lacked merit. Salamed Ventures, in particular, emphasized its legal acquisition of the property from the federal government.
Justice Lifu agreed with the defendants’ arguments, ruling that the suit was filed beyond the allowable timeframe after the cause of action arose in 2006. He also concluded that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate their legal authority over the estate, as required by law.
Consequently, the court dismissed the suit and ordered the Abacha family to reimburse Salamed Ventures N500,000 as litigation costs. This marks the fourth legal defeat for the Abacha family concerning the property, following previous losses at lower courts and the Court of Appeal.
The judgment underscores ongoing legal challenges surrounding significant historical assets and their ownership in Nigeria’s capital, reflecting broader issues of property rights, legal procedures, and governmental actions.
As the case concludes, attention turns to potential further legal actions and the implications for property rights and judicial processes in Nigeria.
