Falana Petitions NJC Over Execution Of Judgement On N1bn Property

Popular lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana (SAN), has petitioned the National Judicial Council to investigate the circumstances under which a judgment over the ownership of a parcel of land in Asokoro area of Abuja was executed.
In two separate petitions, Falana wrote  to the National Judicial Council and the Chief Judge of the Federal Capital Territory High Court, Abuja, Justice Lawal Gummi.
The petitions were made on behalf of Mr. Imonkhuede Ohikhuare, whom Falana said was the owner of the land and the N1bn property built on it.
Falana explained that though Ohikhuare had earlier written similar petitions to the NJC, yet the decision earlier taken on it by the Council deserved review.”
According to him, Ohikhuare was forcibly evicted from the house upon a warrant of possession issued by Justice A.S Umar of the FCT High Court, even though an appeal against the judgment and an application for stay of execution were pending at the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal.
Falana criticised the execution of the judgment delivered by Justice Umar on May 17, 2012.
He said that the judge issued the warrant of possession when none ought to have been issued.
“The judge (Justice Umar) did not only issue a warrant of possession before the time allowed by law, but he also deliberately issued a warrant of possession when none ought to have been issued at all. “This is nothing but a naked abuse of judicial power,” Falana alleged.
The legal practitioner contented that the writ of possession was only appropriate for a judgment obtained against a tenant by his landlord or for recovery of possession of premises.
“It is a land matter dispute matter and the judgment  the plaintiff was given against the defendants was not for delivery up of possession of premises which belonged to the plaintiff, a landlord, but held over by a recalcitrant tenant.
“Assuming, without accepting that the judgment contained an order for possession, along with the declaratory, mandatory and injunctive reliefs granted by the judge, that order for possession can only be enforced pursuant to the Sheriff and Civil Process Act, and the Judgment Enforcement Rules, made thereunder, with requisite Forms being used in the circumstances”.
Falana said that it was illegal for the judge to have issued a writ of possession  “only six days (including Saturday and Sunday)”,  instead of fourteen days after delivery of judgment, as stipulated by law.
He added that the manner of the execution of the judgment was contrary to Order IV, Rule 1(1&2) of the Judgments (Enforcement) Rules, made under Section 94 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act. Vol. 14 Cap S6, LFN, 2006.