Court stops Abuja administration from demolishing property belonging to contractor
The court granted an interlocutory injunction against the FCDA.
An FCT High Court on Thursday granted an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Federal Capital Development Authority, FCDA, from demolishing a property at Plot 38, Jikwoyi Cardastral Zone in Karu, Abuja.
The property belonged to an Abuja-based contractor, Yakubu Oshioke. Delivering a ruling, the vacation Judge, Yusuf Halilu, held that injunctions are usually directed to ensure that parties maintain the status quo, pending the determination of the suit.
“It is my considered view that from the documents attached, there is a need to grant the applicant’s prayer after holistically taking into account the documents before the court by way of judicial notice.
“It is a remedial writ which the court issued for the sole purpose of enforcing their equity jurisdiction,” he said.
Mr. Halilu said, in granting the relief sought, an applicant must convince the court to exercise its discretion.
At the last hearing of the case, counsel to applicant, Victor Agunzi, told the court that the essence of an order of injunction was generally passed by court to ensure that parties maintained the status quo.
Mr. Agunzi argued that the facts contained in his brief were incontrovertible and admissible in law.
He argued that exhibit `A’ was the power of attorney which showed that the plot belonged to the plaintiff.
He said that one Ahmadu Hassan sold the plot to the plaintiff in 2000 and, therefore, asked the court to take judicial notice of the application and uphold it.
Opposing the submission the counsel to the respondent, Felix Ibanga, prayed the court to discountenance the submission of the plaintiff.
Mr. Ibanga argued that the plaintiff’s application was `self-destructive’ and had failed to raise issues on point of law. He also submitted that there was no office of Mayor in Abuja as claimed by the plaintiff in his written arguments in court.
“We urge the court to take judicial notice of the application and hold that the applicant did not take any action on behalf of the original grantor,” he said.
An FCT High Court on Thursday granted an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Federal Capital Development Authority, FCDA, from demolishing a property at Plot 38, Jikwoyi Cardastral Zone in Karu, Abuja.
The property belonged to an Abuja-based contractor, Yakubu Oshioke. Delivering a ruling, the vacation Judge, Yusuf Halilu, held that injunctions are usually directed to ensure that parties maintain the status quo, pending the determination of the suit.
“It is my considered view that from the documents attached, there is a need to grant the applicant’s prayer after holistically taking into account the documents before the court by way of judicial notice.
“It is a remedial writ which the court issued for the sole purpose of enforcing their equity jurisdiction,” he said.
Mr. Halilu said, in granting the relief sought, an applicant must convince the court to exercise its discretion.
At the last hearing of the case, counsel to applicant, Victor Agunzi, told the court that the essence of an order of injunction was generally passed by court to ensure that parties maintained the status quo.
Mr. Agunzi argued that the facts contained in his brief were incontrovertible and admissible in law.
He argued that exhibit `A’ was the power of attorney which showed that the plot belonged to the plaintiff.
He said that one Ahmadu Hassan sold the plot to the plaintiff in 2000 and, therefore, asked the court to take judicial notice of the application and uphold it.
Opposing the submission the counsel to the respondent, Felix Ibanga, prayed the court to discountenance the submission of the plaintiff.
Mr. Ibanga argued that the plaintiff’s application was `self-destructive’ and had failed to raise issues on point of law. He also submitted that there was no office of Mayor in Abuja as claimed by the plaintiff in his written arguments in court.
“We urge the court to take judicial notice of the application and hold that the applicant did not take any action on behalf of the original grantor,” he said.
Comments