A Federal High Court in Lagos has affirmed the ownership right of a firm, Chard Harpers Properties Limited, on a property seized by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, from a former Governor of Bayelsa State, Diepreye Alamieyeseigha.
The property situated at 1, Community Road, Allen Avenue, Ikeja, Lagos, was forfeited to the Federal Government by virtue of the judgement delivered by Justice M. Shuaibu of a Federal High Court in Lagos on July 30, 2007, in a suit FHC/L /328C/2005 between FRN vs Alamieyeseigha & 6 others.
Chard Harpers Properties Limited had, subsequently, bought the property for N280 million from the Federal Government through the EFCC on January 22, 2010.
The firm was said to have been put into peaceful possession of the property until March 2, 2021, when a writ of attachment issued on February 25, 2021, was executed on the property.
Worried by the development, Chard Harpers Properties Limited challenged the legality of the action in the court.
The suit has the Deputy Sheriff, Federal High Court, Ikoyi, Real Estate Derivatives Ltd, Bayelsa State Government and the EFCC as 1st to 4th defendants.
In its arguments, the plaintiff (Chard Harpers Properties Limited) averred that the enabling power to sell the property by the EFCC was donated by the judgment of Justice Shuaibu.
The plaintiff further argued that the writ of attachment on the property issued at the instance of the 3rd defendant (Bayelsa State Government) was irregular, wrongful, and liable to be set aside.
In the course of trial, the 3rd defendant filed an application challenging the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Delivering judgement in the matter, trial judge, Justice Akintayo Aluko noted that the proceedings of October 29, 2024 has an important role to play in resolving the issues.
According to the judge, on the said date, the 3rd defendant’s lawyer withdrew his client’s participation in the case following discovery that the proceeds from the sale of the property had been remitted to the account of Bayelsa State Government.
“The withdrawal of the 3rd defendant from the suit and the admission of its counsel that the proceeds from the sale of the subject property had been remitted to the 3rd defendant is a confirmation by the 3rd defendant that the writ of attachment dated 25/2/2021 issued at the instance of the 3rd defendant which ignited the cause of action in this suit is irregular, wrongful and needless.” [Vanguard]
