Ribiza Hotel Responds to Aba Property Dispute, Challenges Claims Over 24A & 24B Aba/Owerri Road

Ribiza Hotels & Resort Limited has responded to recent reports concerning the ownership and sale of properties known as 24A and 24B Aba/Owerri Road, Aba, challenging the narrative that the transaction amounted to an unauthorised disposal of property belonging to First Atlantic Investment Company Limited.

The response came through counsel to the parties involved, Tochukwu Anaba, Esq., who issued a rejoinder addressing issues surrounding the disputed transaction, the authority behind the sale and Ribiza Hotels & Resort Limited’s involvement as a purchaser.

The development follows a recent ruling by the Court of Appeal in Lagos, which dismissed Ribiza Hotel’s application seeking special leave to appeal as an interested party in connection with the Federal High Court judgment concerning the disputed properties. The lower court had declared the purported sale of the properties unlawful, illegal and void.

Counsel: Sale Was Not an Unauthorised Disposal

According to Anaba, the transaction should not be characterised as an unauthorised disposal of First Atlantic Investment Company Limited’s property.

He stated that he was formally appointed by the company on September 4, 2023, following a meeting convened by Mr. Nnanyeremugo Nwachukwu and Mrs. Uchechi Evoh, with his mandate expressly covering the company’s properties in Aba.

The counsel argued that the documentation and authority presented at the time gave Ribiza sufficient basis to proceed with the transaction.

How Ribiza Became the Purchaser

The rejoinder further explained that Ribiza Hotels & Resort Limited was not the initial prospective purchaser of the disputed properties.

According to the statement, an earlier proposed transaction involving O.J. Vital Services Limited failed after the company was allegedly unable to complete payment.

Ribiza subsequently became the purchaser, with the transaction later documented through a Deed of Sale registered at the Abia State Lands Registry, according to counsel.

Anaba therefore maintained that Ribiza should not be held responsible for what he described as an internal corporate dispute within First Atlantic, arguing that the hotel relied on the corporate authority and documentation presented to it during the transaction.

Disputed 2014 Corporate Resolution

Another major issue raised in the rejoinder concerns a purported corporate resolution dated December 1, 2014, which is being relied upon in challenging the authority of Mrs. Evoh.

Counsel questioned the authenticity of the document, particularly its alleged signature of Mr. Godfrey Chima Okogbue, whom the rejoinder states died in April 2013.

The statement also raises allegations concerning disputed signatures and refers to a 2024 Police Investigation Report, which counsel says contained forensic findings relating to Mrs. Evoh’s disputed signature.

However, the rejoinder acknowledges that the authenticity and legal significance of the documents remain matters for determination by the appropriate judicial authorities.

Appeal Still Pending

The response also draws attention to the continuing legal proceedings surrounding the property.

While the Federal High Court judgment remains in force following the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of Ribiza’s application for special leave, the rejoinder stresses that the broader legal dispute has not, in counsel’s view, been conclusively resolved through media reports.

National Concord had earlier reported that the Court of Appeal rejected Ribiza’s application after finding that the hotel had not satisfactorily demonstrated that it was unaware of the Federal High Court proceedings before judgment was delivered. The appellate court also held that Ribiza had not sufficiently established an interest warranting the special permission it sought.

The appeal referenced by counsel is Appeal No. CA/LAG/CV/1000/2025.

Counsel Questions Calls to Halt Investigation

The rejoinder further questioned why parties alleging fraud and forgery would seek to restrain further police investigation into the same allegations.

According to counsel, allegations of fraud and forgery should be subjected to proper investigation and scrutiny, with the relevant evidence presented before the appropriate authorities.

He maintained that the validity of the disputed transaction should ultimately be determined on the basis of authentic corporate records, transaction documents, admissible evidence and applicable law, rather than competing narratives in the media.

What Happens Next?

The controversy over 24A and 24B Aba/Owerri Road therefore remains a complex legal dispute involving competing claims over corporate authority, title, the validity of transaction documents and the circumstances surrounding the sale.

While the Federal High Court’s judgment remains operative following the Court of Appeal’s recent ruling, Ribiza’s rejoinder introduces additional claims concerning the circumstances under which the property was sold and the documents relied upon during the transaction.

Those claims, including the allegations concerning the disputed corporate resolution, signatures and police investigation, remain subject to determination by the relevant judicial and investigative authorities.

For now, the dispute continues to raise important questions over who had authority to dispose of the property, what documents validly transferred the interest in the properties, what Ribiza knew about the litigation and whether the disputed transaction can ultimately withstand judicial scrutiny.

The parties are expected to continue pursuing their respective positions through the appropriate legal channels.