Barewa Alumni To Appeal Judgment On Disputed Land

The Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, has reserved ruling in an application by the Barewa Old Boys Association to file a cross appeal against a judgment in a land dispute between the association, Haida Properties Limited and Eagle Aluminium Ltd.

The court reserved the ruling after listening to the submissions of counsel to Barewa Old Boys, AVM Ibrahim Shafi’i (rtd) and the opposing submission of the counsel to Eagle Aluminium Ltd, Esume Felix.

The counsel to the FCT and Haida Properties did not oppose the application for joinder by the college.
The land in dispute was allocated to the college in 1983. It was, however, reallocated to Haida Properties Ltd in 2007 and Eagle Aluminium in 2009 respectively.

Haida Properties filed a case against the withdrawal of its right on the land in 2012 and got judgment in its favour in 2020.

The alumni association approached the court to stop Haida Properties Limited and Eagle Aluminium Limited from further construction on the land.

In the motion filed on December 18, 2024 the applicant prayed the court for an order seeking to restrain the property firm from going ahead with construction on the site during the pendency of the matter before the court.

In the motion on notice filed by counsel to the applicant, AVM Ibrahim Shafi’i, the alumni prayed the court to grant the application in the interest of justice.

In the motion on notice, the applicant prayed the court to make the following orders: “An order of injunction restraining the respondents, especially the appellant and first respondent, whether by themselves, their servants, directors, agents, privies, nominees, successors-in-title or any other person acting and/or purporting to act on their behalf, from relying and/or giving effect to or enforcing the rights arising from, conferred by or deriving from the judgment delivered by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory on 17.12.2020, coram Hon. Justice D.Z. Senchi, in Suit No: FCT HC CV 363 2012: Haida Properties Ltd v Eagle Aluminium Ltd & Ors (Judgment), pending the hearing and determination of the applicant’s appeal to the court against the judgment of the trial court.

“An order of this Honourable Court restraining the Respondents, especially the Appellant and the 1st Respondent, from directly or indirectly carrying out or undertaking any act or omission in execution or intended execution of the judgment of the lower Court, by further encroaching, unlawfully interfering with, commencing and/or continuing construction activities on all that parcel of land known and described as Plot No. 291 Cadastral Zone AQQ, Central Area, Abuja measuring 6000.00 square meters and covered by an offer of statutory right of occupancy dated 28.05.2007 with File No. MISC 89813, pending the determination of the Applicant’s appeal.”

The appellant, Eagle Aluminium Limited

commenced the appeal against the decision of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, in Suit No. FCT HC CV 363 2012, delivered on the 17.12.2020 where the trial Court declared the 1st Respondent as the rightful owner allottee of the property.

Barewa College alumni, on its part filed a cross appeal against the decision of the trial court.

The applicant said in the motion that despite the pendency of the appeal and the existence of an application to cross-appeal, the first respondent in connivance with the appellant, commenced construction on the res on the basis that a settlement agreement had been reached amongst them with the exclusion of other parties to the appeal.

The alumni argued that unless they were restrained by an express order of the court, the respondent, relying on the terms of settlement with the appellant.

“This honourable court has the inherent powers to grant the reliefs sought on the face of this motion.

“There is a need to preserve the applicant’s constitutional right of appeal as guaranteed under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) in order to prevent a situation where the Respondents by their action or conduct would otherwise foist a fait accompli upon this Honourable Court and to avoid the Applicant’s crossappeal being rendered nugatory and an exercise in futility”, the applicant said.