A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Maitama, has scheduled November 13 to hear a dispute involving the multi-billion-naira Apo Resettlement Market Scheme.
Justice Halilu Yusuf on Tuesday directed all parties in the case to exchange necessary processes to ensure the swift determination of the matter.
At the center of the dispute is plot 1729, Cadastral Zone E27, Apo District, Abuja, where a major market project is under development. Two developers — Dr. Shuaibu Musari and Techs & Concretes Nigeria Ltd — initially listed as defendants in suit CV/467/2024, are seeking N850 million in punitive costs against the Abuja Municipal Area Council (AMAC), Investment Development Company Ltd, and two others.
In a motion filed through their lawyers, led by Mr. Realwan Okpanachi, the defendants alleged that the market project continued in defiance of a court order issued on April 15. The earlier interlocutory injunction had restrained all parties from carrying out construction on the site pending the resolution of the legal dispute.
The defendants claimed that despite the injunction, the claimants proceeded with construction work. They are now asking the court to either demolish any structures built in violation of the order or direct the Inspector-General of Police, FCT Commissioner of Police, and the Director-General of the Department of State Services (DSS) to seal the property to preserve the subject matter of the litigation.
In an affidavit supporting the motion, the applicants argued that without judicial intervention, the ongoing suit would become “an academic exercise.”
The developers also informed the court that Techs & Concretes had entered a joint venture agreement with the 3rd claimant, Manillah Integrated Partners Ltd, to act as financier, co-developer, and sole marketer of the project. They claimed the claimants breached the agreement by unilaterally continuing development and filing the suit in a bid to avoid accountability.
Justice Halilu had earlier affirmed the validity of the joint venture agreement, recognizing the defendants’ legal interest in the matter and granting the interlocutory injunction in the interest of justice. Following that ruling, the defendants, alongside security officials, posted copies of the court order at the disputed site.
In the fresh motion, the defendants allege that the court order continues to be flouted.
Leave a Comment