Property dispute: Firm files stay of execution against Appeal Court judgment
The judge equally ordered Waziri to vacate the apartments she purchased from the Chief Executive Officer of the firm, Cecil Osakwe.
A property firm, Abeh Signature Limited, has filed a stay of execution of the Court of Appeal’s judgement pending an appeal to the Supreme Court over a property dispute.
The property company and Ms. Asabe Waziri had locked horns in a legal battle over two bedroom units of flats 3B and 3C at Abeh Signature Apartments, located at 1 Mekong Close, Maitama, Abuja.
Two flats in the property of 15 flats had been in dispute between Abeh Signatures Limited and Waziri for over two years.
Justice Musa had, on Feb. 17, 2022, ordered Abeh Signature Ltd. to refund N150 million to Ms. Waziri, which was the amount paid for the two bedroom units of the flat.
The judge equally ordered Waziri to vacate the apartments she purchased from the Chief Executive Officer of the firm, Cecil Osakwe.
Dissatisfied with the judgement, Waziri, represented by her lawyer, Henry Eni-Otu, appealed the decision.
In the appeal number CA/ABJ/CV/246/2022, the appellant, Waziri, sued Abeh Signature Limited as the sole respondent.
The Appeal Court in Abuja, in a unanimous judgement on May 21, overturned the decision of the lower court.
The three-member justices, led by Justice Hamma Akawu Barka, vacated the lower court order on the grounds that the judgement was devoid of credible evidence and constituted a miscarriage of justice.
The appellate court also awarded a N500, 000 cost in favour of Waziri.
But in a swift reaction, the respondent, through his lawyer, Victor Giwa, in an application dated May 22, prayed the court to stay the execution of the judgement pending an appeal to the apex court.
Waziri, in the motion, prayed the court for the following order: “An order for stay of the execution of the judgement delivered by this honourable court on the 21st day of May, 2024, in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/246:2022 between Asabe Waziri and Abeh Signature Limited, pending the final determination of the substantive Appeal.
“An order of injunction restraining the appellant/ respondent, whether by herself or her privies, assigns, agents, personal representatives, or successors-in-title, from acting in any manner to give effect to the judgement of this court delivered on the 21st day of May, 2024, pending the determination of the appeal.”
Some of the grounds of the application include: “The appeal in this case has been entered with the records of appeal already copied and transmitted to the registry of this honourable court
“The respondent/applicant is highly desirous of prosecuting this appeal; unless this application is granted, the respondent will give effect to the judgement of the lower court.
“The respondent/applicant has good and substantial grounds of appeal as well as triable issues, with a reasonable chance of success upon being heard and determined on its merit.
“It is in the interest of justice to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the substantive appeal.”