Aba GRA Property Dispute: Court of Appeal Deals Major Blow to Ribiza Hotel

Ribiza Hotel & Resort Limited has suffered a major legal setback in its attempt to lay claim to a prime property located at 24A and 24B Old GRA, Aba, Abia State, after the Court of Appeal in Lagos dismissed its application seeking permission to challenge an earlier judgment.

In a unanimous ruling delivered by a three-member panel comprising Justice Paul Ahmed Bassi, Justice Boloukuromo Moses Ugo and Justice Danlami Zama Senchi, the appellate court rejected Ribiza Hotel’s application for special leave to appeal as an interested party.

The decision effectively shuts the door on Ribiza’s attempt to overturn a Federal High Court judgment which had declared the purported sale of the disputed property unlawful, illegal and void.

Ribiza Claims It Was Unaware of Court Case

The dispute arose from Suit No. FHC/L/CS/917/2024, instituted by First Atlantic Investment Company Limited against a former director, Mrs. Uchechi N. Evoh, at the Federal High Court in Lagos.

Ribiza Hotel approached the Court of Appeal arguing that it had lawfully acquired the property and should be allowed to challenge the Federal High Court judgment because it was not originally joined as a party to the suit.

The hotel maintained that it was unaware of the proceedings until after Justice Y. Bogoro delivered judgment on July 11, 2025, invalidating the transaction involving the property.

Ribiza argued that the judgment adversely affected its interests because it stood to lose property it claimed to have purchased legally without being given an opportunity to present its case.

First Atlantic Challenges Ribiza’s Claim

However, First Atlantic Investment Company Limited strongly opposed Ribiza’s application and presented evidence which the company said demonstrated that the hotel was aware of the Federal High Court proceedings long before judgment was delivered.

First Atlantic produced court documents from a separate proceeding in Abia State which allegedly showed that Ribiza had been served with notices relating to the Federal High Court case as far back as July 2024.

That was approximately one year before the Federal High Court delivered its judgment.

According to the evidence before the Court of Appeal, Ribiza failed to provide evidence effectively contradicting the claim that it had prior knowledge of the proceedings.

The appellate court consequently treated the unchallenged evidence as having significant evidential weight in determining the application.

Certificate of Occupancy Produced

First Atlantic also relied on a Certificate of Occupancy as evidence of its ownership of the properties at 24A and 24B Old GRA, Aba.

The company argued that Ribiza had failed to establish a superior legal title to the property or demonstrate that the transaction through which it purportedly acquired the property had been validly authorised.

The issue of title therefore became central to Ribiza’s attempt to secure permission to participate in the matter as an interested party.

Court Rejects Ribiza’s Application

In the lead ruling, Justice Paul Ahmed Bassi held that the relief being sought by Ribiza as an interested party was equitable in nature.

The court relied on the established principle that equity aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Justice Bassi found that Ribiza had failed to demonstrate that it had an interest which was prejudicially affected by the Federal High Court judgment in circumstances that justified granting it special permission to appeal.

The court also found that Ribiza had not satisfactorily established that it was unaware of the original proceedings before the judgment was delivered.

Justice Danlami Zama Senchi, who concurred with the lead ruling, similarly held that Ribiza failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence establishing ownership of the disputed property.

He further noted that the company had not satisfactorily explained why it did not seek to join the original proceedings despite the evidence suggesting that it was aware of the case.

Federal High Court Judgment Remains

The dismissal of Ribiza Hotel’s application means that the earlier Federal High Court judgment remains in force.

The purported sale of the disputed 24A and 24B Old GRA properties therefore remains declared unlawful, illegal and void.

First Atlantic Investment Company Limited retains the legal ownership recognised by the lower court, while Ribiza Hotel’s attempt to reopen the matter through an application as an interested party has now been rejected by the Court of Appeal.

The ruling represents a significant development in the long-running property dispute and closes another legal avenue through which Ribiza sought to challenge the earlier judgment.

The decision also underscores the importance of establishing a clear legal interest and acting promptly where a party becomes aware of proceedings capable of affecting its claimed rights.

For now, the Court of Appeal has declined to reopen the matter, leaving the Federal High Court’s substantive judgment intact.