A Federal High Court, Lagos, has dismissed a suit filed by Dorathy Imande, challenging the forfeiture of properties allegedly linked to her husband, affirming that due process was followed by authorities.
Delivering judgment in the suit, Justice Akintayo Aluko held that the applicant failed to substantiate claims of fraud and misrepresentation against the Department of State Services, DSS, and the Federal Government of Nigeria, listed as first and second defendants in the suit marked FHC/L/CS/321/2023.
The applicant’s husband, Osadebamwen Akarobo, was the third defendant in the suit.
The applicant through her lawyer, C. Monaligum, had sought to overturn a prior forfeiture order granted in April 2022 involving a residential property in Ikorodu and a Toyota Venza vehicle, passports, electronics, and cash allegedly seized during a 2021 search operation.
Imande further asked the court to award N50 million in damages against the DSS and federal government of Nigeria, for what she described as unlawful seizure and violation of her rights.
However, the DSS through its lawyer, M. Bajela, opposed the application, insisting that its operatives acted on a valid search warrant and in compliance with the law.
The agency maintained that the items seized were suspected proceeds of illegal activities linked to her husband, Osadebamwen Akarobo, who was accused of involvement in pipeline vandalism.
According to the court, evidence showed that the DSS obtained both temporary and permanent forfeiture orders after due publication in national newspapers, giving interested parties an opportunity to contest the action.
Justice Aluko ruled that the applicant was aware of the forfeiture proceedings but failed to act promptly, waiting over a year before filing the present suit. He described the delay as significant and indicative of bad faith.
The court also rejected claims that the search was unlawful, noting that documents presented by the applicant herself showed she and a relative endorsed the search report at the time of the operation.
On the request for the release of additional items, the judge held that there was no credible proof of ownership or evidence that the items were unlawfully detained.
He further observed that some of the passports listed belonged to individuals who were not parties to the suit.
Citing established legal principles, the court emphasized that it lacked jurisdiction to review or overturn its own earlier decision except under exceptional circumstances, which were not proven in this case.
Consequently, the court dismissed the application in its entirety for lacking in merit, while also reinforce the validity of the earlier forfeiture order made by Justice Peter Lifu, who is currently sitting in another jurisdiction of the court..
