A Federal High Court, Lagos has fixed October 26 to hear a suit by officers of the Nigerian Police Force (NPF), against a Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), Abubakar Aliyu, over ejection from premises.
The plaintiffs are: DCP Dasukid Galadanchi, DCP Emmanuel Odwong, DCP Mansur Mohammed, DCP Efunsola Sowemimo, DCP Eguae Udofia, DCP John Ekowhiro, ACP Dorathy Ikpen, and ACP Mary George.
Others include: 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 Enquiry 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 them from further infringing on their rights.
In the suit numbered FHC/L/CS/749/2016, the plaintiffs through their counsel, Mr I.A Idu, are praying the court for a declaration, that the plaintiffs are rightful owners of the property known as 6A Ruxton Road, Ikoyi, Lagos.
In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs averred that sometimes in 2005, the Federal Government made a monetisation policy to afford public servants the opportunity to purchase their official residences.
They averred that the plaintiffs duly completed all forms indicating their interest 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 averred that there, the third defendant misrepresented to them that the then Inspector General of Police, was interested in the said property, and so, they were compelled to sign alienation documents.
The plaintiffs averred that thereafter, the third defendant, using the name of a private venture: Abus Ventures, paid in some amount of monies into their respective accounts without their consent.
According to them, they subsequently received a Memo from the DC Works, FHQ Annex, ordering them to vacate the premises, within a seven-day ultimatum, since they had been paid consideration by the buyers.
They averred that their lives have been made “a living hell’’ as a result of constant harassment, intimidation and embarrassment by the third defendant.
They therefore, seek an order of court, restraining the defendant from alienating or transferring the said property to any third party other than the plaintiffs.
They also seek 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.
Besides, they want an order of perpetual injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with their title or possession of the said property.
At the last adjourned date on June 3, the trial Judge, Justice Rabiu Shagari, had issued an interim order, directing parties to maintain status quo, pending the hearing of the suit.
The Court had also ordered hearing notices to be served on the defendants.
Meanwhile, plaintiffs’ counsel has told the Court that in spite of pending court orders, the third defendant, disregarded same and forcefully, ejected the plaintiffs from their residence.
They further averred that agents of the defendants beat them and their children with crude implements, while they forcefully ejected them from the premises.
The Counsel to the plaintiffs, has therefore, filed before the Court, form 48, a notice of the consequences of disobedience to order of court.
In the notice, brought pursuant to the Sheriffs and Civil process Act, the plaintiffs informed the defendant that unless the orders of the Court are obeyed to the letter, a committal to prison for contempt may be imminent.
