The Supreme Court, on Friday, dismissed another suit filed by a brother to the late Gen. Sani Abacha, Alhaji Ali Abacha, to unfreeze the accounts traced to him and relatives of the late Head of State in the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Jersey, Liechtenstein, and Luxembourg.
The suit was dismissed by a five-man panel led by Sylvester Ngwuta for lacking in merit
The apex court in a unanimous judgment held that Ali Abacha’s case was statute-barred as at when it was commenced in April 2004 at the Federal High Court in Kaduna State.
The judgment was in the appeal marked: SC/359/2010.
In the lead judgment prepared by Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, but read on Friday by Justice Ejembi Eko, the court held that Ali Abacha’s case was not different from that of a son of the ex-dictator, Abba Mohammed Sani, which was earlier dismissed by the apex court on February 7, 2020.
The court said it noticed that the appellant in this appeal is represented by R. O. Atabo Esq, who, incidentally, was the appellant’s counsel in the earlier appeal.
“No new superior arguments were proferred here to warrant a departure from the decision in the case of Alhaji Sani, earlier decided. This appeal fails, and it is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their costs”, the apex court said.
-Advertisement-
READ ALSO: Akeredolu orders massive recruitment into Amotekun as deadline for herdsmen draws nearer
Kekere-Ekun said: “It is pertinent to state at this juncture that a case with the same facts and issues was decided recently by this court in SC. 68/2010 Alhaji Abba Mohammed Sani Vs the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Attorney-General of the Federation.
“Judgment was delivered on February 7, 2020. It is now reported in (2020) 2-3 SC (Pt. II).
“Although the appellants are different, the facts and issues in contention are the same. Both had their bank accounts in Switzerland and other countries frozen as result of the authorisation given to the Swiss law firm by the respondents.
“In the earlier case, the contention was also that the respondents acted outside the scope of their duties under a repealed law and were therefore not entitled to seek refuge under section 2(a) of the Public Officer Protection Act.”
She said, “It is not in dispute that the suit before the trial court was filed outside the three months stipulated in section 2(a) of the Act.
The only issue to be considered was whether in the circumstances, the action was maintainable. The suit was not doubt statute-barred and rightly struck out by the lower court.
“Incidentally, R.O Atabo, also represented the appellant in Sani Vs the President & Another.
“He has not advanced any superior argument to warrant a departure from our decision in that case. This issue is resolved against the appellant.”
She ruled that it was unnecessary to go further to resolve other issues in the appeal.
We do everything possible to supply quality news and information to all our valuable readers day in, day out and we are committed to keep doing this.
Your kind donation will help our continuous research efforts.
-Advertisement-
-Want to get the news as it breaks?-
