The Federal Capital Territory High Court sitting in Maitama, Abuja, has fixed November 13, 2025, for the hearing of the ongoing dispute over the Apo Resettlement Market Scheme.

The defendants/applicants, through their lawyer, Realwan Okpanachi, filed a motion marked M/10869/25, seeking an order compelling the claimants/respondents to pay the sum of ₦50 million as punitive costs for their alleged deliberate refusal to comply with a court order made on April 15, 2025.

The matter, which was scheduled for Tuesday, was stalled due to the absence of the presiding judge, Justice Yusuf Halilu, who was attending a workshop at the National Judicial Institute.

However, a court official communicated the new date to all parties.

At the centre of the dispute is Plot 1729, Cadastral Zone E27, Apo District, Abuja, where a multi-billion-naira market project is under development.

The claimants/respondents in the substantive suit are AMAC Investment and Development Company and two others, while Dr Shuaibu Omeiza Musari and Techs and Concretes Nigeria Limited are listed as the respondents/applicants.

In an earlier ruling delivered on April 15, 2025, Justice Halilu granted an interlocutory injunction restraining all parties, particularly the claimant, from continuing any form of construction work on the disputed site pending the determination of the substantive suit marked CV/467/2024.

The order was made in response to an application by Techs and Concretes Nigeria Ltd to preserve the status quo.

Despite the injunction, counsel to the applicants/defendants, Okpanachi, alleged that the claimants/respondents in the suit marked FCT/HC/CV/467/2024 proceeded with construction in “grave and wilful contravention” of the court’s directive of April 15, 2025.

In the motion currently before the court, the defendants’ counsel is, therefore, seeking an order mandating the claimants to pay ₦850 million as punitive and exemplary damages for allegedly disregarding the court’s order.

They are also seeking an order for the demolition of any structures already built on the disputed land in violation of the injunction.

Alternatively, they are asking for an order directing the Inspector-General of Police, the FCT Commissioner of Police, and the Director-General of the Department of State Services to seal the property to preserve the subject matter and ensure compliance with the court’s order.

In a supporting affidavit, Techs and Concretes alleged that despite serving and pasting the April 15 order at the construction site, the claimants removed the posted order and erased all related markings, before resuming construction in open defiance of the injunction.

The company argued that unless the court imposes sanctions, its orders risk being treated with contempt and its authority undermined.

Techs and Concretes had earlier informed the court that a joint venture agreement existed between it and Manillah Integrated Partners Ltd, under which Techs and Concretes served as financier, co-developer, and sole marketer, while Manillah acted as developer.

The company accused Manillah and its associates of breaching this agreement by unilaterally continuing the market development and subsequently initiating a suit to evade accountability.

In the April 15 ruling, Justice Halilu affirmed the validity of the joint venture agreement, holding that Techs and Concretes had demonstrated sufficient legal interest and was entitled to protection under the law. He granted the interlocutory injunction “in the interest of justice and fair play.”

Following the ruling, Musari and security officials visited the site to enforce the court order by posting copies of the injunction and informing workers to cease operations.

Musari stated that his actions were guided by respect for the rule of law and a commitment to ensuring compliance with judicial directives by all parties.