The Court of Appeal in Abuja has rejected an application by retired Major Hamza Al-Mustapha seeking more time to appeal a judgment concerning a property in Asokoro, Abuja.
A three-member panel, in a unanimous ruling delivered on Monday, held that Al-Mustapha failed to provide compelling reasons for the delay.
The court also ordered him to pay N1m in costs to Al-Nuri Properties, the respondent in the case.
Justice Okon Abang, who read the lead judgment, said the former Chief Security Officer to the late military ruler, General Sani Abacha, had not shown sufficient interest in the proceedings at the Federal Capital Territory High Court.
The dispute involved a property reportedly sold by Al-Mustapha to Al-Nuri Properties for about N100m. After the value of the property increased, he allegedly sought to reclaim it, describing the transaction as a loan and offering to refund the money paid by the company.
Al-Nuri Properties rejected the proposal and filed a suit on March 16, 2020, asking the court to affirm its ownership of the property.
The FCT High Court sitting in Zuba subsequently entered a default judgment in favour of the company on June 16, 2023, after Al-Mustapha’s lawyers failed to participate in the proceedings.
Instead of appealing the judgment within the required period, Al-Mustapha returned to the same court on April 15, 2024, asking it to set aside the decision.
The trial court dismissed the application in its judgment of September 24, 2025. By that time, the deadline for appealing the original judgment, which was September 15, 2024, had passed.
Al-Mustapha then approached the Court of Appeal, seeking an extension of time to challenge the 2023 judgment.
But the appellate court held that the application did not meet the conditions for granting such an extension.
Justice Abang said the records showed that Al-Mustapha ignored several hearing notices issued during the trial. The court also rejected his claim that his lawyers had abandoned the matter, describing the explanation as inadequate.
The judge said the appellant’s conduct amounted to “doing the right thing at the wrong time.”
The panel further held that Al-Mustapha failed to convincingly explain why he did not appeal the judgment within the prescribed period.
It added that his failure to attend proceedings at the trial court cast doubt on whether he would diligently pursue the matter if granted more time.
On his claim that he was denied fair hearing, the court ruled that no such violation occurred. According to the panel, any situation that appeared to amount to a denial of fair hearing was caused by Al-Mustapha’s own conduct.
The Court of Appeal consequently dismissed the application for lacking merit and amounting to an abuse of court process.
