Adjourning the case on Friday, Justice Charles Agbaza also extended a restraining order he issued against the FCT Minister, Mohammed Bello; the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA) and the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA), over the demolition of Kpokpori’s house on plots 203 and 204, 27 Road, Guzape District.
The Federal High Court sitting in Nigeria’s Federal Capital Territory (FCT) has adjourned the hearing of the motions filed before it by Prince Joseph Kpokpogri, the estranged lover of the controversial Nollywood actress, Tonto Dikeh, over the demolition of his property in the city.
Adjourning the case on Friday, Justice Charles Agbaza also extended a restraining order he issued against the FCT Minister, Mohammed Bello; the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA) and the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA), over the demolition of Kpokpori’s house on plots 203 and 204, 27 Road, Guzape District.
SaharaReporters reported that Kpokpori dragged the FCT Minister and other agencies in the capital city to court to claim over N2 billion in damages after his multi-million-naira mansion was demolished by the FCTA in May.
Other Defendants in the matter filed before Justice Agbaza were the Abuja Metropolitan Management Council, the Federal Housing Authority and the Attorney General of the Federation.
Justice Agbaza had on July 7, issued a restraining order against the defendants upon an ex parte application moved by Kpokpogri’s legal representative, Mike Ozekhome (SAN).
The interim injunction issued by the presiding judge “restrains the defendants either by themselves, agents, officials, privies, all those purporting to have derived title from them or other persons howsoever called from trespassing on or further trespassing on, demolishing, or further demolishing the property known as Plots 203 and 204, 27 Road, Gusape District, Apo Estate, Abuja, covered by letters of allocation issued by the Federal Housing Authority with Ref. No. FHA/BD/ES/APO/P.203 and Ref. No. FHA/BD/ES/APO/P.204 or from evicting the occupants of the said property or in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s exclusive right of possession of the said property pending the determination of the motion on notice”.