Human rights lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana (SAN), has sought investigations into the circumstances surrounding the ejection of a businessman, Mr. Imonkhuede Ohikhuare, from a property worth N1bn in Asokoro area of Abuja.
Ohikhuare was said to have been forcibly ejected from the property through execution of a court judgment which dispossessed him of the parcel of land on which he built the house.
Falana sought investigations into the matter in two separate petitions he wrote to the Chairman of National Judicial Council, Justice Aloma Mukhtar, and the Chief Judge of the Federal Capital Territory High Court, Abuja, Justice Lawal Gummi.
He said although Ohikhuare had earlier written similar petition to the NJC, the decision earlier taken on it by the Council “is deserving of review”.
In the petitions he wrote on Ohikhuare’s behalf, Falana expressed worry over the manner of executing the judgment and the haste in issuing a warrant of possession, six days after the judgment was delivered on May 17, 2012.
He said Ohikhuare was forcibly evicted from the house upon a warrant of possession issued by Justice A.S Umar of the FCT High Court while an appeal against the judgment and an application for stay of execution of the judgment were pending at the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal.
Falana also faulted the execution of the judgment delivered by Justice Umar, saying the judge issued the warrant of possession before time and also when none ought to have been issued.
He stated in the petitions, “The judge (Justice Umar) did not only issue a warrant of possession before the time allowed by law, but he also deliberately issued a warrant of possession when none ought to have been issued at all.
“This is nothing but a naked abuse of judicial power.”
Falana argued that the writ of possession was only appropriate for a judgment obtained against a tenant by his landlord or for recovery of possession of premises.
“It is a land matter dispute matter and the judgment the plaintiff was given against the defendants was not for delivery up of possession of premises which belonged to the plaintiff, a landlord, but held over by a recalcitrant tenant.
“Assuming, without accepting that the judgment contained an order for possession, along with the declaratory, mandatory and injunctive reliefs granted by the judge, that order for possession can only be enforced pursuant to the Sheriff and Civil Process Act, and the Judgment Enforcement Rules, made thereunder, with requisite Forms being used in the circumstances”.
He added that it was illegal for the judge to have issued a writ of possession by Justice Usman “only six days (including Saturday and Sunday)”, instead of fourteen days after delivery of judgment, as stipulated by law.
He said as such, the manner of the execution of the judgment was contrary to Order IV, Rule 1(1&2) of the Judgments (Enforcement) Rules, made under Section 94 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act. Vol. 14 Cap S6, LFN, 2006.
He said the writ of possession was not sought among the plaintiff’s reliefs, but that the judge issued the judgement “to aid the usurpers of our client’s property to quickly take over his property”.
He also said the judge must have signed the writ of possession “in full knowledge of the existence of an application for stay of execution of his judgment”.
The lawyer urged the NJC “to do justice to this matter”.
“The NJC has a duty to halt any further dent to the image of the judiciary in these troubling times, when the impartiality and relevance of the judiciary is, daily being called into question,” he added.
He asked the Chief Judge of the Abuja High Court to sanction all those involved from the office of the Sheriff and Bailiffs of the court.
Falana stated, “The execution of the judgment was carried out by Honourable Justice A.S Umar, Sheriff and Bailiffs of the court, persons or officers acting in concert, who are under your administrative jurisdiction.
“We want your Lordship to cause an investigation into this petition, sanction those involved from the office of the Sheriff and Bailiffs, in the sordid execution and grant our client an administrative redress by restoring him by to his property pending the outcome of the said appeal.”
The judgment which is currently being challenged at the Court of Appeal in Abuja was delivered in favour of Alhaji Shehu Malami but the said judgment was executed in favour of Sir Emeka Offor .
Malami had filed the suit in 2010 claiming that he was originally the person allocated the said parcel of land in 1984.
However, during a hearing of the appeal at the Court of Appeal in Abuja, Malami applied that his name be struck out and be replaced with that of Offor to whom he claimed to have sold the land.
Malami’s basis for the request was that his interest in the property had ceased, stating in his letter that “In 2010 I consented to the action at the High Court being instituted in my name because I did not know that Sir Emeka Offor had registered the power of attorney I gave him”.
Meanwhile, Ohikhuare claimed to have bought the parcel of land from the then Minister of State, Mohammed Aliyu in 2006.
He claimed to have bought the land after “conducting a legal search” at the Federal Capital Development Authority – Abuja Geographic Information Service which he said established that the Certificate of Occupancy was in favour of Aliyu, from whom he bought the land.
He said during the three years of constructing the two identical building on the land in late 2009, “no adverse claimant or trespasser” disturbed him on the land or contested his title to the land in any form.