The Supreme Court has upheld the dismissal of a compensation claim by landowners in the Federal Capital Territory, ruling that the action was statute-barred. The case, Alabra v Minister of FCT, centred on whether the appellants could legally seek compensation for land acquired under the Federal Capital Territory Act 1976. The court found that claims for compensation must be filed within 12 months from the date of the commencement of the Order made under section 2 of the Act, as stipulated in section 6(3). The appellants, who filed their claim in 2012—36 years after the Act came into force—failed to provide evidence that they had submitted an application within the required period. The court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the claim, as the limitation period had long expired. The Court of Appeal's decision to set aside the trial court's judgment was affirmed. The Supreme Court emphasized that the legislature did not intend for compensation claims to remain open indefinitely. Without compliance with the statutory timeframe, no valid claim could be entertained by the authorities.
The appellants in Alabra v Minister of FCT waited over three decades to file their compensation claim, yet expected the courts to treat their case as if time had stood still. This is not a case of government injustice but of legal finality ignored—section 6(3) of the Federal Capital Territory Act 1976 clearly set a 12-month window for claims, and the court merely enforced what the law already stated. The Supreme Court did not create a barrier; it acknowledged one that had existed since 1976.
The deeper issue lies in the assumption that statutory deadlines are negotiable, especially in land matters where documentation and timely action are often disregarded. Many indigenous occupiers may have been unaware of the requirement, but the law made no exception for ignorance. The court's reference to the legislature's intent—that compensation should not "languish ad infinitum"—reveals a long-standing effort to bring closure to land claims in Abuja's development trajectory.
Ordinary landowners, particularly those from pre-1976 FCT communities, now face the reality that delay can extinguish rights, regardless of historical connection to land. This ruling reinforces that legal procedure, not sentiment, determines enforceability. It fits a broader pattern: Nigeria's urban development has consistently prioritized administrative finality over protracted land disputes, leaving many with irreversible losses due to inaction.
