Kaduna State High Court has nullified the revocation of the certificate of occupancy (C of O) of Durbar Hotel by the Kaduna State government.
Governor Nasir El-Rufai had in January 2020 demolished Durbar Hotel, owned by the family of the late head of state, General Sani Abacha, and revoked the C-of-O while the case was pending in court.
Consequently, the Abacha family through their counsel, Dr Reuben Atabo (SAN) dragged El-Rufai and three others to Kaduna High Court headed by Justice Hannatu Balogun over the illegal demolition of the hotel and revocation of the certificate of occupancy.
Those joined in the suit number KDH/KAD/51/2020 along with Governor El-Rufai included, the state’s attorney-general and commissioner for justice, Kaduna State Urban Planning and Development Agency, as well as Kaduna State Geographic and Information Service.
However, the lead counsel to Abacha family, had upon a “motion on notice brought pursuant to Order 15 Rules 1 of the Kaduna State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the honourable court dated and filed on 17th December, 2020, prayed for an order setting aside and or nullifying the purported notice of revocation of certificate of occupancy No. 177789 in respect of Durbar Hotel addressed to Alhaji Mohammed Abacha during the pendency of the suit.”
He also prayed for “an order setting aside and or nullifying the revocation of the title of the Plaintiff/Applicant on the 24 day of January 2020 by the Defendants/ Respondents but received on the 29/1/2020 during the pendency of the action”.
Also prayed for is “an order to maintain status quo antebellum prior to the commencement of this action, and for such further order (s) as the honourable court may deem fit to make in the present circumstances which came up for hearing on 30/03/2023 before the presiding Judge”.
In the ruling, the presiding judge, Justice Hannatu Balogun stated that, “Having heard both the counsel, the oral application to stay hearing of the motion dated 17/12/2020 and filed on the same date cannot be granted because the matter in the Court of Appeal is an appeal against the grant of leave to amend the Plaintiffs processes.
“There is currently no stay of proceedings in this court and the Defendants appear not to be diligent in prosecuting their appeal while at the same time they continue to disobey the orders of this court and also are trying to do acts that will prejudice the other side. The duty of this court is to ensure that there is a level playing ground for all parties.
“In this circumstance, the application to stay proceedings or adjourn this matter cannot be granted in the interest of justice and fairness. It is accordingly refused and the business of the day shall proceed.
“I have considered the application to adjourn this matter made again after the motion has been moved and I agree with the plaintiffs’ counsel that the defendants have not shown bonafide. They have not denied the fact that there is tampering of the res by them or others at their instance.
