THE son of late General Sani Abacha, Mohammed Abacha has commenced the process of challenging, before the Supreme Court, a recent Court of Appeal’s judgment, dismissing the suit he filed to reclaim the ownership of the controversial Malabu Oil and Gas Limited.
Abacha’s team of lawyers, led by Reuben Atabo (SAN) has since applied, through a motion on notice to the Court of Appeal, for among others, leave to formally lodged the appeal, against its May 23 judgment, before the Supreme Court.
The Court of Appeal in Abuja had, in the May 23 judgment, allowed the appeal marked: CA/ABJ/CV/53/2021 filed by the Nigerian Agip Exploration Ltd and dismissed the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/201/2012 filed by Abacha, in the name of Malabu Oil and Gas Ltd, on the ground that the suit was wrongly instituted.
In the motion filed on June 4, Malabu is praying the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the May 23 on grounds of mixed law and facts.
The motion is also seeking leave to raise new or fresh issues of law in the appeal to the Supreme Court in relation to “grounds 1, 3, 4, 9, 14, 16 and 17 of the proposed notice of appeal.”
According to Atabo, one of reasons for seeking the permission of the Court of Appeal includes that Abacha is displeased with the May 23 judgment and is desirous of appealing against it to the Supreme Court..
Another reason, he said, is that the grounds of appeal in Abacha’s proposed notice of appeal are grounds of mixed law and fact, whilst others are raising new/fresh issues of law.
Atabo said the motion was informed by the fact that his client needs the leave of he Court of Appeal “to raise grounds of mixed law and fact as well as grounds, raising new/fresh issues of law.”
In urging the Court of Appeal to grant the motion, Malabu, in a supporting affidavit, stated that the grounds of appeal in the proposed notice of appeal are arguable grounds of appeal and all raise substantial legal issues.
Edwin John, who deposed to the affidavit, stated that there are serious questions of law to be tried by the Supreme Court in the appeal arising from the May 23 judgment.
John further stated that “there is the likelihood and real possibility of the success of the appeal in the Supreme Court.
He said it will be in the interest of justice to grant this motion, especially as the respondents shall not in any way be prejudiced.
He added that the course of justice will be better served if motion is granted to enable the applicant exercise the constitutional right of appeal against the May 23 decision.
John said applicant will be permanently shut out from exercising the right of appeal should the motion be refused.