Efforts by Governor Nasir El-Rufai of Kaduna State and three others to stop the hearing of a N15 billion suit filed against them by the family of the late General Sani Abacha have met a brick wall as a Kaduna High Court dismissed their objection.
The Head of the Abacha family, Mohammed Sani Abacha had dragged El-Rufai and others accusing them, among others, of trespassing on their property – a huge expanse of land housing the Durba Hotel in Kaduna; unlawful demolition of the Hotel and planning to sell it, having purportedly revoked the Certificate of Occupancy.
The Attorney General of Kaduna State; Kaduna State Urban Planning and Development Authority and Kaduna State Geographic Information Service, were joined as defendants in the suit with Ref. No: KDH/KAD/51/2020.
A copy of the Court processes were obtained by Journalists in Abuja on Sunday.
Delivering his ruling, Justice Hanatu Balogun of the High Court of Kaduna State, dismissed the notice of objection filed by the defendants on the grounds that it was without merit.
Justice Balogun upheld arguments by Abacha’s lawyer, Reuben Atabo (SAN) that the suit was competent, well instituted and raised cause of action against El-Rufai and others for which they were required to enter a defence.
The defendants had, in their objection, queried the competence of the suit and the jurisdiction of the Court to hear it, arguing that the suit was not properly instituted and that it raised to cause of action against El-Rufai and the Attorney General.
Justice Balogun held that, as against the defendants’ claim that the third and fourth defendants (KASUPDA and KADGIS) were not served pre-action notice as required by law, the plaintiff served them pre-action notices, dated January 17 and February 17, 2020.
She said, “In my view, the plaintiff has complied with the provisions of both the Kaduna State Urban and Regional Planning Law, No: 31 of 2018 and KADGIS Law, No: 15 of 2018. In the present case, I find that the third and fourth defendants were notified of the plaintiff’s intention to sue.”
The Judge held that as against the defendants’ argument that no cause of action was established, the plaintiff raised substantial cause of action against El-Rufai and others.
The Judge found that not only was El-Rufai, as the governor, vested with the power to administer all the lands on behalf of the people, he “is the person said to have issued or directed the issuance of the contested revocation orders over the plaintiff’s right of occupancy.”
She added that the Attorney General was also a necessary party in the case because, being the Chief Law Officer, he is to guide the State and other defendants in the suit, particularly when the plaintiff was claiming damages.
“I, therefore, find and hold that both the first and second defendants (El-Rufai and the AG) are necessary parties in this suit, and the plaintiff has, in his statement of claim and reliefs sought, shown that he has a complaint against the defendants.
Balogun said, “I therefore find and hold that there is a cause of action against the first and second defendants. On the whole, I find all issues raised by the defendants against them and in favour of the plaintiff.”
Justice Balogun has adjourned till February 10, 2022, the hearing of the substantive suit.
In the substantive suit, filed in the name of Durba Hotel Plc, the plaintiff was praying the Court for among others, an order of mandatory injunction restraining the defendants and their agents from dealing with the property “in whatever manner” and to set aside “all steps and all procedures so far taken to transfer the plaintiff’s property to a third party.”
Abacha also wants the Court to restrain the defendants and their agents from selling to a third party or tampering with its ownership of “the plaintiff’s parcel of land situate and lying at General Muhammadu Buhari Way (Wharf Road), Kaduna North, Kaduna State covered with certificate of occupancy No: 17789…”
The plaintiff, who is paying for damages and cost to the tune of N1.5 billion, equally wants the Court to among others, declare unlawful the defendants’ demolition of the Durba Hotel building and the purported revocation of its Certificate of Occupancy.
