Abacha family appeals judgment revoking late dictator’s property

The late general Sani Abacha's family has filed a case with the Court of Appeal in Abuja, challenging the ruling of the high court that upheld the federal government's revocation of their property.

On Monday, the Federal High Court in Abuja dismissed the family's complaint contesting the confiscation of their property situated in the Maitama District of Abuja, according to Justice Peter Lifu.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Abacha's wife Hajia Mariam Abacha and son Mohammed Abacha, had argued that it was improper for the Federal Government to take ownership of the property and transfer it to Salamed Ventures Limited, a private firm, without notifying or paying them.

They implored the court to mandate that the Minister and the President of the Federal Capital Territory, who are defendants in the suit, to return the property to them.

However, in his judgment on Monday, Justice Lifu said the suit was statute-barred at the time it was filed in 2015, adding that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to initiate the court action.
Nonetheless, the family is not happy and has gone to the Court of Appeal with their attorney, Reuben Atabo (SAN), in an attempt to have the decision from the lower court overturned.

The Abacha family asked the appellate court to use Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to take over the case as a court of first instance and handle it fairly in the Notice of Appeal, which included 11 grounds.

The family claimed that Justice Lifu committed a legal error when he used Section 39 of the Land Use Act to rule that the Federal High Court lacks jurisdiction to reclaim land under the Land Use Act. This is in contrast to the Court of Appeal's ruling, which stated that the appropriate court to hear such a case is the Federal High Court.
According to Section 6 of the 1999 Constitution, our courts have the authority to decide cases involving disagreements between people and the government or its agents. Such an approach is an insult to the authority of our courts when a party to a lawsuit transfers title to the property in issue, and it will not be tolerated.

The appellants' family claimed that the lower court's trial judge made a legal error when he determined that the appellants' title to Plot 3119 Maitama, Abuja, may be revoked even though Section 28 of the land was not followed.

The hearing date has not yet been set by the court.