A Lagos State High Court sitting at the Tafawa Balewa Square has granted an interim injunction restraining the Federal Government or its representatives from evicting the African Union from seven properties.
The African Union is a continental body consisting of 55 member states that make up the countries of the African continent with its headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
In order to assist the Union with its objectives, the Federal Government of Nigeria demised the properties to it for a period of 99 years from July 1, 1959, and August 1, 1960.
The properties: 3 Macpherson Avenue, 5A Ikoya Avenue, 5B Ikoya Avenue, 24 Mekuwen Street, 20 Gerard Road, 2A Kuramo Close and 2B Kuramo Close are all located in the Ikoyi area of Lagos.
Read Also: Lagos Govt Launches Taxi Service With 1,000 New Cars
Justice Olukayode Ogunjobi granted the injunction following an ex-parte application by the African Union which argued that by Article 11 (3) of the General Convention on Privileges And Immunities of the Organisation of the African Unity, the archives of the claimant and in general all documents belonging to it which are located in the properties enjoy immunity and the actions of the Federal Government threaten that immunity.
The judge also prohibited the Federal government or its agents from taking over, entering into or seizing the properties.
The judge held that the ‘Federal Government’ included the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and the Presidential Implementation Committee of the White Paper on the Commission of Inquiry into the Alienation of Federal Government Landed Property.
The African Union is the sole claimant/applicant in the suit while the AGF and the Presidential Implementation Committee of the White Paper on the Commission of Inquiry into the Alienation of Federal Government Landed Property are the first and second defendants.
The claimant had asserted via its originating summons that under several Deeds of Indenture relating to the properties, it is entitled to quiet enjoyment and exclusive possession of the seven properties.
It submitted that it had to approach the court because the second defendant has been trying to evict it from the properties – despite them being in its possession – because the Federal Government had leased the properties to other persons.
It asked the court to make an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants pending the determination of the notice of motion for interlocutory injunction.
The court granted the applicant’s four reliefs. It also restrained the government from interfering with the claimant’s occupation and use of the properties whether by an executive, administrative, juridical or legislative action.
Proceedings were adjourned till April 8, 2022, for a report of service.
