The wives and children of late Air Commodore Otuekong Idongesit Nkanga, a former Military Governor of Akwa Ibom State, are at loggerheads over one of his properties.
The late governor who died in December 2020 left behind his wife, Mosun Nkanga and her two daughters. He married Mosun in 2007 after his first marriage to Joanna Achibong, which produced four male children, was dissolved by a court.
Nkanga, has a property with two wings in Asokoro, Abuja. He gave the first wing, 3A to his wife, Mosun, while the second wing, 3B where he lived before his death, was given to his children to serve as family house on the condition that it should be reverted to his wife, Mosun, when his last son, Ini Idara, turns 30 years.
The battle for the property started in 2021 after Mosun sued Joanna and her four children over their refusal to grant her access to her late husband’s house in Abuja.
On 17 March 2022, the court declared that disallowing her access to possession of her matrimonial home violated her fundamental human rights to own and have an interest in her late husband’s property.
The court barred Joanna and her children from restraining or interfering with Mosun’s right to live in or enjoy her matrimonial home, pending the issuance of a letter of administration or grant of probate over the estate.
However, Mosun ran to court to get a warrant for an immediate possession of the two apartments and evicted her step-children and their mother from the family house despite the fact that the late governor’s son, Ini Idara, is not yet 30 years.
Achibong and her sons also had to run to court because Mosun was not following the Will of the late patriarch who instructed that Ini Idara must be 30 years before the property can be transferred to Mosun.
The four children, Utibeabasi Nkanga, Etietop Nkanga, Lance Nkanga and Ini Idara Nkanga who are applicants asked the court to reinstate them into the house.
The applicants, through their lawyer, Inibehe Effiong, asked a High Court in the FCT to set aside the warrant of possession of premises issued in favour of their stepmother.
Effiong described the eviction of his clients as unlawful and the refusal to allow them access to their home as a violation of their fundamental human rights.
He said by virtue of Sections 20 and 21 of the Recovery of Premises Act, Cap 544, a warrant of possession can only be issued to enforce the judgment in an action by a landlord against a tenant and argued that the applicants were not tenants.
He also added that the warrant was issued last year and it had expired before execution and thus rendered the execution illegal and liable to be set aside. He also revealed that the warrant has three months lifespan but was executed after one year.
According to him, the court did not give Mosun the exclusive right to possess, live and enjoy the property but only restrained his clients from interfering with the respondent’s right to access the premises pending the issuance of a letter of administration or grant of probate over the estate.
He described Mosun’s action as an abuse of court order and therefore prayed the court to set aside the warrant of possession.
About the Author
