Again, Court Adjourns Arraignment Of Property Developer, Others In ₦300m Illegal Eviction Suit

The Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court sitting in Maitama, Abuja, has fixed March 3, 2026, for a ₦300million suit arising from an alleged illegal eviction involving property developer, Mr. Cecil Osakwe, and two others.

Justice Samira Bature gave the new date on Tuesday following stalled proceedings occasioned by her absence due to ill-health.

The defendants in the charge, marked FCT/HS/CR/222/2023, are Mr. Osakwe, Mr. Victor Giwa, and Ms. Edith Erhunmuuse.

They are facing allegations bordering on criminal conduct, including the forceful eviction of occupants and the destruction of property estimated at ₦300 million.

At the last sitting, the court observed that the case, which had previously been adjourned to enable the third defendant secure legal representation, suffered another delay.

Although the third defendant was at last now represented by counsel, Mr. C. C. Onyechere, her absence was attributed to ill-health. However, no medical evidence was presented to substantiate the claim.

The prosecution had previously also applied for an adjournment, informing the court that the counsel handling the matter was on official assignment outside the country, an issue which had equally stalled earlier proceedings.

Justice Bature recalled that at a previous sitting, the court had warned that it would no longer tolerate delays capable of frustrating the arraignment of the defendants.

Counsel to the first defendant, Mr. Ayuba Kawu, and the second defendant, Mr. Giwa—who appeared for himself, opposed the prosecution’s application. Kawu told the court that his client had travelled from the United States specifically to attend the hearing.

However, when asked to produce evidence of the trip, none was provided.

Kawu subsequently urged the court to strike out the charge for want of diligent prosecution, describing the prosecution as unserious.

In her ruling, Justice Bature had held that although the case had suffered several adjournments, largely at the instance of the defence, the prosecution deserved the benefit of the doubt. She overruled the objection and refused the application to strike out the charge.

The judge further directed that all pending applications challenging the court’s jurisdiction would be taken when the prosecution is present to respond.

Emphasising the need for fairness, Justice Bature stated that “in the interest of justice, both parties must be given the opportunity to be heard.”

The judge had also ordered counsel to the third defendant to ensure his client’s appearance in court on the next adjourned date and to ensure that the prosecution is duly served with the necessary notice.