The Federal High Court in Abuja has postponed proceedings in a disputed property case involving former Ogun Central Senator Iyabo Obasanjo, former FCT Senator Philip Aduda and five other defendants.
The case, which concerns a 1.67-hectare parcel of land in Asokoro District, could not proceed when it was called on Monday, November 9, 2026. The court subsequently fixed January 25 for further mention.
The plaintiffs, ABB Electrical Systems Limited and Ambassador Yohana Margif, instituted the suit over the ownership and alleged interference with the property identified as Plot 4254, Cadastral Zone A04, Abuja.
Other defendants include Ismail Iron, Senator John Mbata, Jamaila Sani Alhassan, Altine Jibrin and unidentified individuals.
How the Abuja property dispute began
The legal battle centres on competing interests in a parcel of land in Asokoro, one of Abuja’s established residential districts.
In the court application filed in January 2025, ABB Electrical Systems Limited and Margif claimed that the company obtained the land through an allocation by the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA).
They relied on a Statutory Right of Occupancy bearing a reissued date of May 23, 2006, as the basis of their ownership claim.
The plaintiffs alleged that activities involving some of the defendants raised concerns about possible interference with the property. They consequently approached the court for an order protecting the land while the substantive dispute was being determined.
Court declined initial injunction request
On January 28, 2025, Justice Inyang Ekwo, who initially handled the matter, declined to grant an interim injunction without first giving the defendants an opportunity to respond.
The plaintiffs had asked the court to restrain the defendants from entering, trespassing on, altering or modifying the property pending the determination of the substantive suit.
Rather than granting the request immediately, Justice Ekwo directed the plaintiffs to put the defendants on notice to explain why the order should not be made.
The court also granted a separate request permitting substituted service of the court processes through publication in two national newspapers.
The suit is registered as FHC/ABJ/CS/67/2025.
Repeated setbacks in court
The proceedings have encountered several delays since the initial application.
On October 2, 2025, the matter could not proceed after the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Abniyilo Na’allah, sought an adjournment over difficulties serving the defendants. No defence lawyer appeared at the sitting.
The case subsequently came before Justice Mohammed Umar. On January 6, 2026, the judge fixed March 30 for the next proceedings following the absence of the lawyers.
Neither side’s counsel was present when the matter came up on March 30, prompting another adjournment to June 10.
At the June sitting, the case again failed to proceed. It was subsequently returned to Justice Ekwo, who had handled the earlier proceedings, and fixed for July 9.
The latest adjournment, announced after the November 9 sitting, means the dispute remains before the court.
What the plaintiffs say about the land
In an affidavit supporting their application, Margif stated that ABB Electrical Systems Limited received the land through an FCDA allocation covered by a Statutory Right of Occupancy.
He said the company intended to develop the property in accordance with the conditions attached to the title and applicable regulations governing land use in the Federal Capital Territory.
The plaintiffs argued that allowing the defendants to interfere with the property could cause damage that might undermine the eventual outcome of the litigation.
They therefore urged the court to protect their claimed interest until the substantive issues were resolved.
These assertions represent the plaintiffs’ position and have not been established as findings of the court.
What happens next?
The next reported court date is January 25, although the year should be confirmed from the court’s official cause list.
The substantive dispute over the Asokoro property remains unresolved in the proceedings reviewed for this report.
The court has yet to make a final determination establishing ownership of the disputed land or finding any of the defendants liable for the alleged interference.
Further proceedings are expected to provide an opportunity for the parties to present their respective positions before the court.
