- Abuja mechanics, FCT minister at lugger heads
By Godwin Tsa, Abuja
Auto Mechanics in Abuja are up in arms against the authorities of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, over plots of lands located at the Mechanic Village.
The dispute, which is already a subject of litigation before the High Court, started in 2009 when the mechanics (plaintiffs) sought and obtained an order of the court stopping the demolition structures and re-allocation of the plots of lands to developers.
The plaintiffs were led by Umar Ado, Musa Adamu, Sylvanus I.U., Inyi Development Union, Uzu Elias, Ibro Maigari, Emmanuel Chukwudi, Prince Ashebadike, Alex Ugwu Amaechi, Prince Gas, and Maiwada Mohammed, among others.
The defendants were listed as the Minister for the FCT and the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA), the Chairman, Abuja Municipal Area Council (AMAC), Beyedu Construction Ltd and Palm Global Service Limited (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants).
In the suit, marked FCT/HC/CV/ 1700/06, the plaintiffs told the court through their lawyer, Chief Oba Maduabuchi, that they were allocated plots of land by the FCT Minister, the FCDA and the chairman, AMAC (1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants) to be developed into a mechanic village.
The lawyer further told the court that his clients duly developed the plots into the Abuja Apo Mechanic Village and were in quiet occupation of same until the defendants threatened to demolish it.
In the face of the threat, the plaintiffs went to court seeking to stop the demolition on the entire Apo Mechanic Village and the re-allocation to developers.
With the matter before Justice Salisu Garba of the High Court of the FCT, the plaintiffs sought and obtained an order of court on November 5, 2009, in the presence of the 1st to 3rd defendants, stopping the demolition and re-allocation of the plots of land.
In the said preservative order, Justice Garba had specifically restrained the defendants, their agents, servants or privies howsoever described or anybody else acting on their behalf from mapping out the land, the subject matter of the suit “for the purpose of mass housing scheme adjustment or any other purpose until the hearing and final determination of the substantive suit.”
In addition, the defendants, “their agents, servants or privies howsoever described were further restrained from granting or conveying title or titles over the plots, the subject matter of this suit to third parties, corporate bodies or institutions until the hearing and final determination of the substantive suit.”
Notwithstanding the order of court, the 1st defendant re-allocated the land to Beyedu Construction and Palm Global Service (4th and 5th defendants) who have massed material and men at the site with a view to developing it.
Maduabuchi specifically listed the beneficiaries of the re-allocated plots of land to include MISC 105785 Beyedu Construction Ltd, 4052 CD; MISC 103971 Palm Global Services Limited 4029 CD; MISC 102019 Marhaba Agro Allied Farms Ltd 4109 CD; MISC 150313 S.L. Int. Ltd 4023 CD; MISC 88722 Masanwa Ent. Ltd 4024 PFS; MISC 105155 Tandro Systems Ltd, and several others.
He submitted that the defiant act of the defendants was a monumental assault on the integrity and power of the court and its ability to sanction all persons that flout its authority or dare it.
In urging the court to stamp its authority under the Constitution over the acts of the defendants, Maduabuchi further submitted that the court had the responsibility and power to protect the sanctity of its pronouncements.
Accordingly, the plaintiffs prayed the court for an order setting aside the allocation of the plots by the Minister of the FCT and the FCDA to Beyedu Construction and Palm Global Service in defiance to the orders of the court forbidding any such allocation.
They further asked for an order of court directing the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the following plots 589B, 460, 1118, 1129, 1127, 1128, C/F12, S/020, R209, R208, R205, SB53, 341A, C/112, R22, 563, 196. 4, 182, 121, 558, 559, 1121, 288, 307, 64, 1123, 227, 50, 782, 331, 332, 437 and 186, the subject matter of the suit, to the plaintiffs.