The former Minister of Police Affairs, Navy Captain Caleb Olukolade has been sued before an Abuja High Court by the Oladapo family in Ondo town over the ownership of a landed property.
The property which is the subject of litigation is situated in Plot 321, Zone A7 Wuse 11, Abuja.
Other defendant in the matter is Minister of the Federal Capital Territory and Federal Capital Development Authority.
The plaintiffs are praying the court that the purported revocation/withdrawal of the plaintiffs right of occupancy in respect of the land was unconstitutional and illegal, hence is null, void and of no effect.
They asked the court for an order mandating Olukolade to vacate all the structure on the land and granting possession of the land and a perpetual injunction directing the defendants, their agents, servants and privies from entering and further trespassing or disturbing the plaintiff from peaceful possession of the land in dispute.
The plaintiffs also demanded for N150m, being damages for unlawful transfer/allocation of the landed property in dispute and N100m for trespass, forcible entry and unlawful occupation and use of the plaintiff’s land.
According to them, the former Minister of State for Federal Capital Territory used government machinery to harass and chase away contractors engaged by them and ever since dinied them access to the land.
The defendants in their statement of claim averred that the land in dispute was allocated to their late father during his life as a member of House of Representatives in the First Republic and was given a certificate of Right of Occupancy with reference number FCDA/ES/80/OD-13 along with schedule of Right of Occupancy Rent indicating the rent to be paid.
According to them, the deceased commissioned a registers surveyor, Geodata Limited which produced a survey plan with number -FCT/ABU/OD.130 with full Beacon number – FCTA7PB1614, dated April 7, 1992.
The defendant is his reply argued that the land was allocated to him sometimes in 1997 and commenced all the necessary documentation of the land sometimes in May 1998, adding that he did not meet anybody on the land as at 1998 when it was lawfully allocated to him.
The defendant contended that the plaintiffs plan allegedly was an afterthought and a document prepared in contemplation of the suit saying that the deceased and the plaintiffs were the rightful owners or in possession of the property.
He averred that the plaintiffs did not make physical inspection of the land, saying that they would have known and had knowledge of the first defendant’s legal ownership and possession of the land since 1998.