Today's Trending

Orubebe appeals CCT judgment on property

Godsday Orubebe, ex-minister of Niger Delta, on Wednesday approached the Court of Appeal, Abuja to set aside judgment of the Code of Conduct Tribunal that convicted him for non-declaration of an asset.


The notice of appeal filed on October 12, was made available to newsmen by lead counsel to the appellant, Selekeowei Larry (SAN).

[pro_ad_display_adzone id=”60438″]

Danladi Umar, Chairman of the tribunal, delivering the judgment on October 4, ordered the forfeiture of the asset, a plot of land located in Asokoro part of the FCT to the Federal Government.

Umar also held that the appellant surreptitiously hid the asset from the Code of Conduct Bureau for selfish reasons.

He held that the claim of the appellant that he (Orubebe) divested the property to a third party was an act to cover up the criminal act.

But counsel to the appellant said the tribunal erred in law when it held that the appellant was found guilty as charged.

He said the tribunal equally erred in law when it on the above premise ordered the forfeiture of Plot 2057 at Asokoro District, which did not belong to the appellant.

The appeal said the property was neither acquired corruptly nor purchased by the appellant, adding that it was a gift from the respondent (Federal Government).

The notice of appeal said the tribunal further erred when it held the appellant remained the owner of the property despite evidence of transfer to a third party.

It said: “The learned trial tribunal erred in law when it held that the appellant remains the owner of Plot 2057, Asorko District, when evidence clearly shows various deeds of transfer.

“Not only were the deed of assignment, deed of sale and power of attorney tendered and admitted in evidence, the two defence witnesses testified to the transaction without contradiction.

“There is no time limit for regularisation of title at the Lands Registry.”

The notice of appeal also said: “Under the law, the first defence witness (Divention Properties Ltd) is the holder of equitable interest in the said plot having paid for it.

It said: “The finding of the tribunal is perverse and should be vacated in the interest of justice.”

Advancing argument, the appellant counsel said “the judgment does not in any way contemplate our law’’.

Larry said: “Our law does not ascribe ownership of a plot of land as in this case to the person who had divested his interest by selling to another.

“Orubebe had divested his interest in the said Plot 2057 Asokoro District, an empty land in the bush when he sold it to Mr Akinwumi Ajibola who claimed same in his evidence.

“In fact, the appellant made it very clear to the tribunal that the transaction was well made before his last declaration of assets held to be in breach of the law.”

Larry also said: “Let us even assume without conceding that Orubebe did not declare the property, it would still not amount to infraction because the Plot 2057 was a gift by the respondent.

“In one sentence, the judgment of the tribunal was simply a travesty of justice.”

Orubebe was a minister under the administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan and became popular when he tried to disrupt the collation of the 2015 presidential election results.

3 Comments on Orubebe appeals CCT judgment on property

  1. Good for him


  2. Nice one


  3. The land Use Act once invoked without considering the practice in dealing with landed property may result in convicting this appellant. It may cause irreparable damages. Governor’s Consent must be first sought and obtained before interest in land can be divested effectively. But what is the practice in the Industry? In Abuja, the Minister of Federal Capital Territory consent must be sort and obtained. But in practice, sell, give authority for change. Attach relevant purchase document to the application etc. and the sale/change of ownership are obtained at same time. Instead of the sell to sort the said consent, the buyer usually applied in place of the seller. This is due to the long delay in obtaining such consent, and does not support commercial exigencies. So, who is to blame for this mix-up in practice and the law. Must a man who sold, and have handed over all necessary authorization to divest interest in land, though consent of the Minister has not been sought, remains the owner? In Savannah Bank Ltd v. Ajilo, the law protects the buyer from the seller who holds legal title in the books until the consent of the Minister is first obtained from denying the legality of the buyer from benefits accruing to him from transaction for failing to do the needful. Or render the transact invalid for the buyer to insist on taking possession. I think, a third party to insist that there is no equitable transfer of the title of the property to punish the seller seems not the law. In the present circumstances, a party not privy to the transaction, in a situation where there is no dispute to create a problem to punish a man who has sold his property, but insists that he still owns it and must be declared as such, and for such failure want to forcefully take it from the buyer. In other words, robbing parties to a contract validly contracted, as a bye stander. The doctrines of privy of contract and abide by your contract in this case seems to have rendered irrelevant.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: