By Henry Ojelu
The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, Abuja, has ordered all parties in the dispute over Plot 3619, Maitama District, Cadastral Zone A06, to maintain the res and preserve the status quo.
The suit, No. CV/4154/25, was instituted by Maryam Ahmed, suing through her lawful attorney, EMI Systems Ltd, against the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory and the Federal Capital Development Authority, FCDA, over what she described as an unlawful and clandestine revocation and reallocation of her land.
At proceedings held on December 2, 2025, the claimant/applicant was represented by a formidable team of Senior Advocates of Nigeria, led by Goddy Uche, SAN, alongside Abdullaziz Ibrahim, SAN, and T.J. Aondo, SAN. The defendants were represented by Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, while Simeon Eigege announced appearance for a party seeking to be joined in the matter.
During the sitting, a motion for joinder was filed by Governor Ahmadu Fintiri of Adamawa State, who seeks to be joined as a party to the suit.
The governor had been identified by the defendants themselves as the alleged beneficiary of a purported reallocation of the disputed plot, despite the claimant’s subsisting title.
Following submissions by counsel, all parties undertook before the court to preserve the res and maintain the status quo pending the determination of the interlocutory injunction and joinder applications.
The court subsequently adjourned the matter to January 21, 2026, for hearing of all pending applications.
In the substantive suit, the claimant is asking the court to declare that the FCT Minister acted outside the law by allegedly revoking her interest, closing her AGIS policy file and reallocating Plot 3619 while her statutory right of occupancy remains valid and subsisting.
She is also seeking declarations that the purported revocation and reallocation of the land to a third party were done without due process and are therefore unlawful, null and void.
The claimant further prayed the court to set aside any purported revocation and reallocation, nullify any fresh offer of grant or certificate of occupancy allegedly issued to another person, and issue a mandatory injunction compelling the defendants to recognise and honour her subsisting certificate of occupancy and statutory right of occupancy over the land.
In her pleadings, Maryam Ahmed averred that she lawfully obtained a certificate of occupancy over the plot and duly secured building plan approval from the FCDA.
She stated that construction equipment had already been moved to the site in preparation for development of the property.
She insisted that at no time was she served with any notice of revocation, as required by law, adding that she only became aware of the alleged revocation through the defendants’ counter-affidavit and a motion for joinder filed in court.
According to the claimant, the FCT Minister proceeded to issue a fresh certificate of occupancy to Governor Fintiri without first revoking or withdrawing her own valid certificate of occupancy, a step she described as a fundamental breach of land administration laws and her constitutional right to fair hearing.
She is also asking the court for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents or any third-party allottees from selling, transferring, developing or further dealing with the disputed plot.
In addition, the claimant is claiming ₦100 million as general damages for the alleged unlawful revocation of her title and closure of her AGIS file, as well as ₦200 million as cost of litigation.
Pending the determination of the substantive suit, the claimant filed a motion for interlocutory injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from further acts of revocation or reallocation and to stop any person allegedly allocated the plot from carrying out construction or other activities on the land.
However, in a counter-affidavit opposing the application, the FCT Minister and the FCDA argued that the motion lacked urgency.
They contended that all lands in the FCT are vested in the Minister and that failure to develop allocated land within two years makes it liable to revocation.
The claimant, however, maintained that such powers must be exercised strictly in accordance with the law, including service of a valid notice of revocation, which she insists was never done in her case, making the alleged revocation legally untenable.
The post Court orders status quo in Maitama land dispute appeared first on Vanguard News.
