By Sandra Umeh
A Federal High Court Lagos on Wednesday fixed Nov. 2 for hearing of a suit by some senior police officers, who were ejected from their official quarters at 6A, Ruxton Road, Ikoyi, Lagos.
The officers, who filed the suit against a Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), Abubakar Aliyu, alleged that the illegal ejection was to prevent them from buying the property as directed by the Federal Government.
The plaintiffs are DCP Dasuki Galadanchi, DCP Emmanuel Odwong, DCP Mansur Mohammed, DCP Efunsola Sowemimo, DCP Eguae Udofia, DCP John Ekowhiro, ACP Dorathy Ikpen, and ACP Mary George.
Others are ACP Iliyasu Kwabai, CSP Bose Akinyemi, CSP Dauda Koki-Lasisi, CSP Joy Agunlana, SP Edith Ozobia, SP Okon Obong, DSP Kikelomo Oshodi-Glover and DSP John Idoko.
Joined as first defendant is the Presidential Committee on the Implementation of the White Paper on the Commission of Inquiry into the Alienation of Federal Government Landed Property.
The second defendant is the Minister of Power, Works and Housing, while the third defendant is DCP Abubakar Aliyu.
The plaintiffs are challenging the harassment and threat of ejection by the third defendant from their residence at 6A, Ruxton Road, Ikoyi, Lagos.
They are also seeking an order restraining the respondent from further infringing on their rights.
The case could not proceed on Wednesday because the counsel representing the parties had come to court to take a new date for hearing believing that the court will not sit.
Justice Hadiza Shagari, however, showed up in court and when the case was called, the counsel opted for a new date to get fully prepared.
The case was consequently adjourned until Nov. 2 for hearing of pending applications to de-list some of the plaintiffs and another, challenging a contempt proceeding against the defendant.
In the suit numbered FHC/L/CS/749/2016, the plaintiffs through their counsel, Mr I. A. Idu, are asking for a declaration that the plaintiffs are rightful owners of the property known as 6A, Ruxton Road, Ikoyi.
The plaintiffs said in their statement of claims that sometime in 2005, the Federal Government made a monetization policy to afford public servants the opportunity to purchase their official residences.
They said the plaintiffs duly completed all forms indicating their interests to purchase the property.
According to the plaintiffs, sometime in 2014 before they could be issued offer letters by the first defendant in line with the guidelines, they were `coerced’ by the third defendant to the police force headquarters.
They claimed that the third defendant said the then Inspector General of Police was interested in the property and they were compelled to sign alienation documents.
The plaintiffs said that thereafter, the third defendant, using the name of a company — Abus Ventures — paid in some money into their respective accounts without their consent.
According to them, they subsequently received a memo from the DC in charge of Works of the Force, ordering them to vacate the premises within seven days since they had been paid by the buyers.
They, therefore, sought an order of court restraining the defendant from alienating or transferring the property to any third party other than the plaintiffs.
They also sought an order directing the third defendant and his agents, to return the documents collected from the plaintiffs at the police force headquarters, where they were deceived to sign documents against their will.
In addition to that they sought an order of perpetual injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with their titles or possession of the property.
Shagari had issued an interim order directing parties to maintain status quo pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
Plaintiffs’ counsel had, however, informed the court that in spite of the interim orders, agents of the third defendant had beaten the plaintiffs and their children with crude implements as well as ejected them from the premises.
He filed court Form 48, a notice of the consequences of disobedience to order of court, insisting that unless the order of the court was obeyed to the letter, a committal for contempt may be imminent.
