•No, it belongs to someone else – FCDA
By Job Osazuwa
In 2005, Mr. Omoniyi Fayomi, then a civil servant, purchased a two-bedroom bungalow and a boys’ quarters from the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA) in Abuja. At the time, he had thought his days as a tenant were over for good.
He said he had painted a beautiful picture of how he would live as a landlord and utilise the property for the rest of his life in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja. He told Daily Sun that it was a dream come true, and his joy knew no bounds.
Having fulfilled all the requirements to become the rightful owner of the property, Fayomi said he then spent about N1 million to renovate the house to his taste.
But at the moment, the retired civil servant is singing a bitter song. His joy of being a landlord in the FCT has been truncated and suspended indefinitely. The property has been revoked by government that had earlier sold it to him. The embittered man has tried different means to repossess the house, which he claimed rightfully belonged to him, but all to no avail.
Fayomi, who was a staff of the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation, Abuja Office, had in 2005 expressed interest in purchasing the property, owned by the Federal Government, situated at 2, WRA 18428D, C Close, 313 Road, Kubwa, Abuja.
Even before the buildings were put up for sale, the civil servant had lived in one of the apartments with his family. As gathered, the property was assigned to him as his official residence on July 9, 1999.
He narrated how he paid N1.4 million in three instalments to acquire the property. He said he was able to raise the money through borrowing from friends and relatives, and he was to repay the loan later from his retirement benefits.
According to him, trouble started in 2008 when he was told that another civil servant, who was living in the boys’ quarters, had also paid for his two-bedroom flat. He claimed that the co-occupant in the WRA 18428D was not qualified to have applied for the acquisition of the property from the Federal Capital Territory Administration.
While he was already savouring his newly acquired residence, he said he got the shock of his life when some staff of the FCDA ordered him to vacate the place within two weeks. He alleged that no government official gave him concrete reasons for the sudden U-turn in the Federal Government’s decision. According to him, he was also not promised any form of compensation but he was referred to the bank through which he paid the money to rectify the mix-up.
Fayomi said he ran from pillar to post within the two-week period to ensure that he was not evicted from the apartment. Unfortunately for him, the two weeks appeared to have gone faster than normal. He told the reporter how he hurriedly sought a lawyer to file a case on his behalf and defend him. The matter dragged on till September 13, 2011, when judgement was given.
He said not too long after what turned out to be an unfavourable court judgment was delivered, policemen and some staff of the FCDA came to his house to forcefully throw him out.
“It was as if I was dreaming that very day. When I showed them the documents l used in purchasing the place, the leader of the team was shocked and he ordered the policemen not to harass me. But that didn’t stop them from ejecting me.
The retired civil servant had, on October 22, 2012, written a letter to the then Senate President, David Mark, pleading with him to intervene in the matter and help him to recover his property.
The letter by Fayomi’s lawyers from Lawrence Alabi & Company Chambers read in part: “Pursuant of our client’s expression of interest in the said property, he was offered the property together with all the appurtenances, rights of way, easements, reversionary rights and privileges. This was as a result of the letter of offer for sale emanating from the FCDA on behalf of the Federal Government on October 30, 2005.”
In its response to Fayomi’s complaint, the Chief of Staff to Mark, Senator Anthony G. Manzo, informed Fayomi that his letter had been referred to the chairman, Senate Committee on FCT for further necessary action.
But five years down the line, the distraught man said he was yet to receive any news from the National Assembly.
Having been sacked from the house, he told Daily Sun that he was squatting with friends, but decided to relocate to Lagos when the shame was too much for him.
The man said: “After I had exhausted my active years, all I could get is to be evicted from the house I spent over N2 million to acquire from the same government I worked under. After spending 35 years with the civil service, I had carefully planned how I would live in the apartment with my wife and rent out the boys’ quarters without envisaging any obstruction on the way. My active years had been reduced to a total waste.”
He said government would not have allotted the house to him if he were not the legal occupant of the said apartment, and he begged the concerned authorities to revisit the matter.
A letter dated May 17, 2005, signed by the then Accountant-General of the Federation, M.A. Gadzama, read: “This is to confirm that the above-named officer is occupant of Block 57, Flat1, Federal Housing, Kubwa. The said house was allocated to this officer under the bulk allocation arrangement of this office in 1977.”
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Federal Capital Territory and FCDA have told Fayomi that the house no longer belonged to him because it had been duly allocated to another civil servant.
A copy of the judgement delivered by Justice A.I. Kutigi in suit No. CV/779/08, revealed that the apartment was allocated to Fayomi but later revoked by FCDA and given to his co-occupant.
The co-occupant/third defendant in the suit was said to have been the most senior civil servant and, by right, eligible to apply for the acquisition of the house.
The judge said the FCDA made the allocations to two different staff because of the wrong numbering in the applications, believing the properties were different.
“Realising their error that the property was one, the FCDA had to recourse to exhibit D6 – the Federal Government circular regulating sale of shared property/accommodation, which provides that, where an accommodation is shared, it was to be sold to the senior officer.
“On the counter-claim, the third defendant is granted possession of the two-bedroom bungalow and appurtenances known as House 2, 313, C Close, occupied by the plaintiff.”