Kaduna Govt loses appeal over Durbar Hotel ownership
Story from Saleh INUWA, Kano
The Appeal Court in Kaduna has dismissed an appeal brought before it by the Kaduna State government, seeking to overturn the ruling of a state High Court presided over by Justice H. A. L. Balogun concerning the ownership of Durbar Hotel Plc.
The family of the late Head of State, General Sani Abacha, who are the rightful owners of the Durbar Hotel, were represented by their lead counsel, Dr. Reuben O. Atabo (SAN).
They had named the state governor as the 1st defendant, the Attorney General and Commissioner of Justice as the 2nd defendant, Kaduna State Urban Planning and Development Authority (KASUPDA) as the 3rd defendant, and the Kaduna State Geographic Information Service (KADGIS) as the 4th defendant.
However, the lead counsel to the Kaduna State government, Mr. A.U. Mustapha (SAN), pointed out that the respondent had previously referred to the 3rd defendant as Kaduna State Urban Planning and Development Agency, stating that the defendant is a non-juristic entity and, therefore, cannot be cured by a mere name correction or amendment.
READ ALSO: Kaduna State High Court nullifies Gov. El-Rufai’s revocation of Durbar hotel’s C of O
On April 4, 2022, Justice H.A.L Balogun ruled that the mistake in the name of the 3rd defendant was a misnomer that could be corrected by a simple court order, as it did not mislead anyone about the party being sued, and hence did not lead to any miscarriage of justice.
Unsatisfied with the ruling of the lower court, the defendants, through their counsel, sought and obtained the Court of Appeal’s permission to file a notice of appeal on May 19, 2022.
In their brief of argument, the defendants urged the Court of Appeal to resolve the issues in their favour on the grounds that “The respondent did not serve the 3rd and 4th defendants with the requisite pre-action notice.”
On the other hand, the respondent, in their brief of argument, urged the Court of Appeal to dismiss the defendants’ appeal and uphold the ruling of the lower court, stating that “The respondent had served the 3rd and 4th defendants with the requisite pre-action notice before joining them as parties to the action leading to this instant appeal.”
Consequently, the three justices of the Court of Appeal, while delivering their judgment, dismissed the appeal brought before them by the defendants, emphasizing that the era of technical justice is over.
They also questioned why the defendants had failed to file their defense to the respondent’s claim for over three years.