Follow Us on Google Discover
The Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja has dismissed a right-of-occupancy case involving an Abuja property measuring 2.8 hectares, faulting Triples G. Investment Limited’s legal team for attempting to “tie the hands of the trial court” by filing a “frivolous appeal”.
Justice Okon Abang read the leading judgment of the three-man panel of the Court of Appeal on Tuesday.
The verdict arose from a pending dispute before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory concerning the alleged ownership of Plot 1851 within Sabon Lugbe, Abuja, measuring approximately 2.8 hectares.
The appeal was filed by Triples G. Investment Limited against Olabode Olaleri and another in an appeal marked CA/ABJ/CV/1261/2024.
Appeal Court faults interlocutory appeal
- The Appeal Court held that “no matter how intelligent the appellant is, the appellant cannot command the impossible,” having filed incompetent grounds of appeal.
The Court observed that the lower court was yet to make a “final decision” on the matter, yet the appellant’s legal team made an “indecent haste” to appeal.
- “My Lords, I think this interlocutory appeal was dead on arrival. I so hold.”
- “The decision of the trial court dismissing the appellant’s objection challenging the competence of the respondents’ counterclaim is an interlocutory (temporary) decision,” he said.
The jurist also maintained that the appellant required leave of the trial court, sought and obtained within 14 days, to file a valid appeal.
The judge faulted the appellant for misleading the Appeal Court into amending an incompetent notice of appeal.
The judge held that the original notice of appeal was incompetent and could not be amended.
- “This appeal is like beating a dead horse to rise and walk. It is not possible.
- “No matter how intelligent the appellant is, the appellant cannot command the impossible. I so hold,” Abang ruled.
Court describes appeal as abuse
Going into the merits of the case, the Court of Appeal described the appeal as an abuse of the process of the court.
The court considered the appellant’s reliance on res judicata and estoppel in relation to the disputed property.
- “The appellant, as a claimant, cannot use a plea of res judicata (a matter already judged) as a sword to make a claim against the respondent while insisting that estoppel (preventive measures) would operate in the case to bar the respondent.”
- “The appeal is clearly frivolous and it was deliberately filed to tie the hands of the trial court from hearing the case,” Abang said.
He consequently dismissed the appeal, describing it as a reckless application.
Dispute over Abuja property
As revealed by the court, the appellant, on February 27, 2024, challenged the competence of the respondents’ counterclaim by filing a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the counterclaim.
The legal team of Triples G. had argued that the issue of ownership and title to the disputed plot had allegedly been settled in favour of the appellant in an earlier case filed by the appellant against the FCT Minister and the FCDA.
Those claims were denied by the respondents.
In its ruling, the trial court also held that there was nothing in the judgment relied upon by the appellant indicating that the appellant was the owner of the said plot.
Abuja property disputes remain active
The development adds to the list of court interventions in property disputes in the nation’s capital.
- In January 2026, the Federal Capital Territory High Court struck out the criminal charge filed against Ghanaian investors behind JonahCapital Ltd and a Nigerian lawyer over the River Park Estate dispute.
- The decision was delivered by Justice Modupe-Osho Adebiyi following a discontinuance application by the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF).
In August 2026, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Nyesom Wike, confirmed that the age-long dispute over the development of River Park Estate in Lugbe, Abuja, had entered the international arbitration stage.
