The Nigerian Army has urged a Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a university professor challenging the ownership of a disputed property in the Apo District of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). In a preliminary objection, the military service described the suit as an abuse of court process, arguing it is incompetent, speculative, and seeks an advisory opinion on an academic question.
The lawsuit, filed by Professor John Ntui Ntuiabane and marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2635/2025, requests the court to interpret the constitutional right of citizens to own property in Nigeria. It specifically concerns a plot of land originally allocated to a retired and now-deceased Major. The property is currently occupied by a retired Naval chief, and the suit aims to preserve the rights associated with the original allocation.
The dispute gained public attention following a highly publicised altercation in 2023 at the site between Lieutenant Ahmed Yerima, a young Naval officer stationed there, and the then-Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike. The minister had led a team of FCT Administration officials to the plot on the day of the confrontation.
In its objection dated March 24, 2026, and filed by human rights lawyer Victor Giwa, the Army contended that the professor’s case fails to disclose a justiciable controversy. “The suit is grossly incompetent, having been filed via Originating Process, highly speculative and hypothetical and academic in nature,” the motion stated. The Army further challenged the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the matter and urged the court to strike out the suit, suggesting it be consigned to a textbook as a classroom exercise on improper litigation.
TheProfessor has named several top government and military officials as defendants. They include the Minister of Defence, the Minister of State for Defence, the Chief of Defence Staff, the Chief of Naval Staff, Vice Admiral Zubairu Gambo (a former naval chief), Lieutenant Ahmed Yerima, and the Attorney-General of the Federation.
The case underscores ongoing tensions over property allocation and ownership within the FCT, a matter frequently entangled in bureaucratic and legal disputes. The court’s ruling on the preliminary objection will determine whether the substantive issues raised by the professor—concerning property rights and the validity of certain allocations—will be heard. A dismissal would effectively end the legal challenge without a ruling on the underlying property dispute.
