Abuja land tussle: Court threatens to strike out ex-President Yar’Adua daughter’s suit over delay

Justice Olukayode Adeniyi of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) has threatened to strike out a suit instituted by Zainab, daughter of former President Umar Yar Adua, against Itban Global Resources Limited, Haliru Malami, FCT Minister and FCDA over ownership of Plot 506, Zone B 09, Kado District, Abuja.

The judge issued the threat to throw out the suit following the persistent delay in the hearing at the instance of Zainab who filed the case.

At Thursday’s proceedings, where the suit was slated for definite hearing by Justice Adeniyi having granted accelerated hearing order, the court was stunned that the daughter of the former President was not in court and has not filed her defence to counterclaim on the land because of her trip out of the country.

Mathew Adebara, who stood for Zainab, created drama when he told Justice Adeniyi that his client was not in court and that one Abdullahi Bello, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Zainab’s Company, Marumza Estate Development, who was to serve as a witness had travelled out of Nigeria for months and got held up in a foreign country by the COVID-19 pandemic.

He subsequently asked the court to adjourn the matter till the time his client and the witness would be back in Nigeria.

Drama ensued when counsel to Itban Global Resources Limited, Dr Remi Peters Olatubora SAN, got up and told Justice Adeniyi that lead counsel to Zainab, Chief Sebastian Hon SAN, on phone call informed him that Zainab had travelled to England on holiday, hence, she was not available to sign documents to be used to file her defence in the counterclaim to the land.

Olatubora SAN, who stood for both Itban Global Resources Limited and its sponsor, Haliru Sa’ad Malami, as first and second defendants, rejected the reason for the adjournment of the suit, adding that it is a strange development because Sebastian Hon SAN never mentioned Abdullahi Bello’s issue with him.

Counsel to FCT Minister and FCDA, Mr Yakubu Abubakar, in a fierce objection to adjournment drew the attention of the judge to the two conflicting information from Zainab’s side and asked the court to proceed with the counterclaim to the land.

However, Justice Adeniyi after listening to counsel gave Yar Adua’s daughter till January 14, 2022, to either file all her processes in her own suit or have the suit struck out for lack of diligent prosecution and seriousness.

The judge, who expressed reservation on the undue delay being suffered by the suit, said that there is nowhere a plaintiff will be dictating to a court or hold it to ransom.

Zainab, through her company, Marumza Estate Development Company Limited, had dragged Itban Global Resources Limited, Haliru Malami, FCT Minister and FCDA before the court laying ownership claim to plot 506, Zone B 09, Kado District, Abuja, having allegedly purchased the land from FCDA through Itban Global Resources and Malami.

The FCT Minister and FCDA who are 3rd and 4th defendants have however in their counter affidavit to Zainab’s claim, told the court that Yar’ Adua’s daughter allegedly faked several documents to lay claim to ownership of the disputed plot of land in Abuja.

Among others, the Minister held that Zainab’s company is not registered and not the owner of the land and those identities of those listed as directors are unknown and that there is no communication to them on the purported purchase of the land from the original owner.

The Minister and FCDA held that there are conflicts on how the plaintiff purportedly acquired the land and that there is no record in the Department of Land or evidence of payment made by the plaintiff for the land.

The two defendants further held that the plaintiff misrepresented facts in the registration of Power of Attorney and that it is full of irregularities.

They stated that the 1st defendant, who allegedly sold the land, issued a letter on March 4, 2021, denying ever selling the land and ever issuing Power of Attorney to the plaintiff.

Besides, the 3rd and 4th defendants revealed a mismatch in the name of the purported seller and its letterhead papers while there was no payment of a statutory fee for the registration of the Power of Attorney.

They also contended that the signature on the Deed of Registration and stamp duty for the purported Power of Attorney did not match the original signature at the time while several documents used for the purported registration were not satisfied in addition to the absence of board resolution.

The Minister and FCDA also held that the Certificate of Occupation released to the plaintiff was done on misrepresentation and that the certificate and the registration of the Power of Attorney have since been voided by the FCDA authorities.

They further argued that there was nothing in the records of their Department of Land Administration and the Abuja Geographic Information System, indicating that the plaintiff paid any money whether official or otherwise in respect of the land, adding that their review of events revealed that the registration of the purported Power of Attorney was irregular.

The 3rd and 4th defendants further claimed that upon the discovery that the plaintiff was laying claim to the plot of land through irregular documents, they voided and set aside a Certificate of Occupancy purportedly obtained from FCDA.

They, therefore, asked the court to dismiss the case of the plaintiff with cost because she is not entitled to any claim in the originating summons.