The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday, threatened to strike out a suit filed against Sen. Iyabo Obasanjo and others for lack of diligent prosecution.
By Taiye Agbaje
The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday, threatened to strike out a suit filed against Sen. Iyabo Obasanjo and others for lack of diligent prosecution.
Justice Inyang Ekwo, in a ruling, gave the warming following the absence of the plaintiffs and their lawyer in court.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the two plaintiffs; ABB Electrical Systems Limited and Amb. Yohana Margif, had dragged Obasanjo and others to court over dispute on Abuja landed property.
The property is located at Plot 4254, Cadastral Zone A04, measuring approximately 1.67Ha in Asokoro District, FCT, Abuja.
Other defendants in the suit are the former Senator representing the FCT, Philip Aduda; Ismail Iron; John Mbata; Jamaila Sani Alhassan; Altine Jibrin, and unknown persons as 2nd to 7th defendants respectfully.
Justice Ekwo had, on Jan. 28, refused to grant the the ex-parte motion filed by the plaintiffs after it was moved by their lawyer, Abniyilo Na’allah.
The applicants had sought an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from entering, trespassing, altering or modifying the property known as Plot 4254, Cadastral Zone A04, measuring approximately 1.67Ha, Asokoro, Asokoro District FCT-Abuja belonging to the plaintiffs pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
The judge, instead, directed the plaintiffs to put the defendants on notice in order to hear from them why the prayer should not be granted.
“Upon studying the prayers and averments in support of the motion ex-parte and the averments in the affidavit of urgency, I am of the opinion that the prayers are not such that can be granted without hearing from the defendants,” the judge had said.
Upon resumed hearing on Thursday, Gerald Ogokeh, counsel to the 4th defendant (John Mbata), who was the only one in court, said he had not been served with any process in the suit.
“We only saw the process online and we do not want our hair to be cut in our absence. That is why we came to see if they (plaintiffs) will be in court,” Ogokeh said.
“I will give them one more opportunity,” Justice Ekwo said.
“As court pleases,” Ogokeh responded.
“This adjournment is at the instance of the plaintiffs who are not in court, not represented by counsel and no reason or excuse has been given for the absence.
“This adjournment is to enable the plaintiffs an opportunity to come to court and do their case,” the judge wanted.
According to the judge, If the plaintiffs do not show any seriousness on that date, they will leave me with no other option than to strike out the matter.
Justice Ekwo subsequently adjourned the matter until March 15 for further mention.
The plaintiffs had filed the motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/67/2025 dated Jan. 13 but filed Jan. 17 by Na’allah.
In their six-ground argument, the applicants said they were agitated with the fear of the defendants entering, trespassing, altering or modifying the property belonging to them given the alleged imminent threat made by the defendants on the land to forcefully take possession and ownership from them.
They said they are the rightful owners of the land by virtue of the statutory Right of Occupancy granted to them
“That the plaintiffs/applicants have been in quiet and peaceful possession of the land without any challenge from the defendants/respondents or anyone at all.
“It will occasion serious miscarriage of justice against the plaintiffs/applicants if the defendants/respondents are allowed to tamper with, enter, trespass, alter or modify the property belonging to the plaintiffs.
“Allowing the defendants/respondents to tamper with, enter, trespass, alter or modify the property belonging to the plaintiffs will destroy the res and render the judgment of this court nugatory,” they said.
The applicants said irreparable damage would be caused to them if the defendants were not restrained.
Margif, in the affidavit he deposed to, said the company (1st plaintiff) was allocated the parcel of land by the Federal Capital Development Adminstration (FCDA) covered by a Statutory Right of Occupancy with new issued date of May 23, 2006.
He said the company intended to start developing the said land in compliance with terms contained on the statutory Right of Occupancy and other guiding rules and laws within the FCT.
He alleged that the recent activities of the defendants, including Sen. Obasanjo, who represented Ogun Central Senatorial District between 2007 and 2011, had become worrisome.
Margif prayed the court to grant their application in the interest of justice.(NAN)
