Court overturns El-Rufai's dismissal of Durbar Hotel's C of O

A Kaduna High Court has overturned the revocation of the Durbar Hotel Occupancy Certificate by Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai.

In January 2020, El-Rufai demolished the Durbar Hotel, which belonged to the family of the late head of state, General Sani Abacha, and revoked its C of O while the case was still pending in court.

The Abacha family, through their attorney, Dr. Reuben Atabo, consequently dragged the Governor and three others before the Kaduna High Court presided over by Judge Hannatu Balogun for the "unlawful demolition" of the hotel and the dismissal of its C of O.

The Kaduna State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, the Kaduna State Urban Planning and Development Agency and the Kaduna State Geographic and Information Service, according to a The Nation report.

The lead solicitor for the Abacha family, had, following a "Motion on Notice brought pursuant to Order 15 Rules 1 of the Kaduna State High Court (Civil Proceedings) Rules 2007 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Honorable Court dated and filed on December 17, 2020, sought an order rescinding and/or rescinding the purported Notice of Revocation of Certificate of Occupancy No. 177789 regarding Hotel Durbar addressed to Alhaji Mohammed Abacha during the term of the prosecution."

He also prayed for "an order quashing and/or setting aside the revocation of Plaintiff/Plaintiff on January 24, 2020 by Defendants/Respondents but received on 1/29/2020 pending action. "

Counsel also requested "an order to maintain the antebellum status quo before the commencement of this action, and for such other orders as the Honorable Court may think fit to make in the present circumstances which have been submitted to the Court. hearing on 03/30/2023 before the President of the Chamber.”

Plaintiff's attorney, E.D Izu Esq, submitting his claim supported by a nine-paragraph affidavit, exhibits, and written address in support of the claim, argued that the defendants had been unable to to counter the affidavit claims because they were awaiting direction from government officials and requested an adjournment to get their house in order.

In the ruling, the presiding judge, Justice Hannatu Balogun, said: "After hearing from both counsel, the oral request for adjournment of the motion hearing dated 17/12/2020 and filed at the same date cannot be granted because the case before the Court of Appeal is an appeal against the granting of leave to vary plaintiffs' proceedings.

"There is currently no stay of proceedings in this Court and the defendants appear to be not diligent in pursuing their appeal while continuing to disobey the orders of this Court and also attempting to do acts that will prejudice the other side. The duty of this Court is to ensure that there is a level playing field for all parties.

"Under the circumstances, the request for a stay of proceedings or an adjournment of this matter cannot be granted in the interest of justice and fairness. It is therefore denied and the business of the day continues.< /p>

"I have considered the request to adjourn this matter made again after the motion was filed and agree with plaintiffs' counsel that the defendants failed to act in good faith They have not denied the fact that there is tampering with the res by them or others at their instance.

"In the circumstances, given that the motion relates to the res and that the defendants have not seen fit to respond to the motion for more than 2 years, there is no evidence that the interests of justice will be served by an adjournment of this matter. The request for an adjournment is therefore denied.

"After reviewing Plaintiffs' motion of 12/17/2020 which is uncontested, I am of the opinion that the motion is well founded in light of the reasons for the motion, the uncontested affidavit and the attachments.

"The Supreme Court and indeed every court in the land has denounced the use of mutual assistance by litigants. It is the duty of the courts to provide a level playing field for all parties and not to allow neither party to use the legal system side-by-side with self-help to the detriment of the other.

"In general, I accept Plaintiff's motion dated 12/17/2020 and rescind the purported Notice of Revocation of Certificate of Occupancy No. 177789 regarding Hotel Durbar and revoke the revocation of title to the claimant made on 24/01/2020 and received on 29/1/2020 during the duration of this action The status quo before the war, that is to say before the start...