The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Court

  • Court nullifies arbitration proceedings in Tempo Energy suit

    Court nullifies arbitration proceedings in Tempo Energy suit

    The Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Abuja has nullified the arbitration proceedings at the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), London, instituted against indigenous energy giant, Aiteo Eastern E&P Company Limited, by a group of lenders that partly financed its acquisition of OML 29, declaring its conduct a violation of the injunctive orders of the court.

    Aiteo acquired OML 29 and the Nembe Creek Trunk Line (NCTL) from Shell in a landmark transaction in 2014 that closed at around $3.01 billion, with billionaire founder, Benedict Peters, contributing about $1 billion in personal fortune to conclude the deal and restart production.

    Justice S.B. Belgore nullified the ICC proceedings on Tuesday while ruling in an application brought before it by Tempo Energy Nigeria Ltd.

    According to court documents, the claims arose from a multi-party financing arrangement dating back to 2014, under which Tempo alleged that the defendants breached their obligations under the governing facility agreements.

    It claimed that several of the defendants had, on December 11, 2020, initiated proceedings in the High Court of England and Wales and commenced arbitration before the ICC in London without joining it as a party.

    To protect its interests, Tempo instituted a suit on January 14, 2021, seeking injunctive reliefs to restrain the defendants from taking further steps in the pending proceedings and arbitration.

    Marked FCT/HC/CV/079/2021, Aiteo Eastern E&P Company Ltd, African Finance Corporation, Ecobank Nigeria Ltd, First Bank of Nigeria, Guaranty Trust Bank, Fidelity Bank, Shell Western Supply & Trading, Shell International Trading & Shipping, Citibank Europe (UK Branch), Citibank N.A. (London Branch), FBN Trustees, Zenith Trustees, FBN Merchant Bank, Sterling Bank, Union Bank, Zenith Bank, and Dame Elizabeth Gloster, were listed as defendants.

    Read Also: Court nullifies arbitration proceedings in Tempo Energy suit

    In another application by Tempo Energy, filed through its counsel, Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN), the FCT High Court, on January 22, 2021, granted interim orders of injunction, restraining the defendants from taking any further steps in the English proceedings and the ICC arbitration pending the hearing of the motion on notice. It also consolidated pending applications filed by the parties and adjourned the matter for hearing.

    Dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, the Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division.

    Despite the subsistence of the interim orders of the FCT High Court, the defendants proceeded with the ICC arbitration in London between 2021 and 2024 in defiance of the subsisting injunctive orders of the court.

    In its unanimous judgement delivered on April 25, 2025, the appellate court affirmed the validity and subsistence of the interim orders of January 22, 2021.

    Dismissing the appeal as an abuse of process, the court awarded costs of N1.5 million against the defendants. It also ordered an accelerated hearing of the pending applications before the High Court and reaffirmed that parties must maintain the status quo while litigation is pending, warning that steps taken in violation of subsisting court orders may be deemed void.

    Following the judgement of the Court of Appeal, at the resumed hearing before the FCT High Court on 20th, 21st, and 22nd May 2025, Ogunwumiju, on behalf of Tempo Energy, applied for a restorative order to set aside the ICC arbitration proceedings conducted in London, contending that the arbitral proceedings were conducted in flagrant defiance of the subsisting injunctive orders of the court.

    While opposing the application, Mrs Joke Aliyu and Mr Babatunde Fagbohunlu, SAN, who appeared for Ecobank Nigeria and other defendants, filed a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction on the grounds that the court lacked the competence to restrain foreign arbitral proceedings.

    Ruling on Tuesday, July 8, Justice Belgore dismissed the preliminary objection, declaring it incompetent and lacking in merit. According to the court, the preliminary objection constituted an abuse of the court process. Consequently, it granted Tempo Energy’s application, declaring the ICC arbitration proceedings in London, conducted in violation of the injunctive orders of the court, as null and void.

    The court further reiterated that the interim orders of injunction granted on January 22, 2021, remained valid, subsisting, and binding on all parties to the suit. It directed all parties to comply fully with the subsisting orders and to refrain from taking any further steps in defiance of the court’s orders.

    The court also ordered the defendants to pay N500,000 in costs to Tempo Energy and adjourned the case to September 29, 2025, for the hearing of the consolidated interlocutory applications.

    Aiteo had first sued Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria a few years after acquiring the company’s 30 per cent stake in the lucrative asset, alleging fraud, deceit and misrepresentation of facts in the sale.

    In a suit, FHC/ABJ/ C8/738/2021, dated July 27, 2021, before a Federal High Court in Abuja, Aiteo accused Shell of not fully disclosing the true position of the oil wells to it at the time of the sale, despite receiving the full amount required for the sale. It asked the court to award it $2.5 billion in compensation.

    According to the company, the poor condition of the asset, as well as the constant attacks on its production infrastructure by crude oil thieves, made it difficult to produce and thus prevented it from fulfilling its financial responsibilities to creditors.

    The consortium of lenders that committed $USD 2 billion according to data seen exclusively by THEWILL include Zenith – $323m, First Bank & GTB – $200m each, Fidelity Bank – $175m, AFC – $125m, Ecobank Nigeria & Union Bank – $100m each, Sterling Bank – $60m and Shell Western –$512m.

    Peters’ initial equity contribution for the purchase was $898, 237, 697.35 in cash with an additional $257m injected at closing for fees and other ancillary costs as well as funds to restart production, according to bank documents seen by our correspondent Other small equity holders like Tempo Energy contributed $136 million.

  • Court nullifies Union Bank’s conversion of Nicon Investment’s £130.7m fixed deposit

    Court nullifies Union Bank’s conversion of Nicon Investment’s £130.7m fixed deposit

    • It was malicious to join Jimoh Ibrahim, says judge•Bank to pay £1m damages

    The Lagos State High Court in Ikeja yesterday slammed Union Bank for converting Nicon Investment Limited’s £130.7million fixed deposit.

    The bank, in its counterclaim, said it deducted the money over a loan owed by the claimant’s sister company, Global Fleet Oil & Gas Limited.

    But, the court set aside all acts of the bank on the claimant’s pound sterling fixed deposit account.

    It awarded £1million as damages for the bank’s breach of its fiduciary duties to the claimant and negligence.

    The court also held that it was “malicious” for the bank to join Jimoh Ibrahim as a defendant in its counterclaim.

    Justice O.O. Abike-Fadipe delivered the judgment in suit LD/1074/2010 by Nicon Investment against Union Bank.

    The claimant stated that it maintained a banker/customer relationship with the defendant and operated a British pound sterling fixed deposit account with the bank.

    Nicon Investment said it applied for and was granted a loan facility.

    Although the offer letter indicated that the deposit of pounds sterling from Global Oil & Gas Ltd would serve as collateral for the borrowed amount, the agreement was modified, with the claimant providing the security.

    The bank confirmed the claimant’s deposits of £45,000,000.00 and £80,000,000.00, which were fixed for 90 days at an interest rate of five per annum, subject to rollover.

    The bank also confirmed placing a lien on the fixed pound sterling deposits for the facilities of N10billion and N16billion extended to the claimant, with the lien remaining until full repayment of the facilities.

    The defendant confirmed the fixed deposit balance of £130,720,557.06 as of April 30, 2010.

    However, the claimant said on May 18, 2010, it received notification from the bank indicating a unilateral reduction of the fixed deposit to £130,682,918.93.

    The reduction, Nicon Investment said, purportedly resulted from a joint reconciliation and mutual agreement to liquidate non-performing loans to Global Fleet using proceeds from the claimant’s fixed deposit account.

    The claimant denied any reconciliation or agreement regarding its fixed deposit account with the bank.

    The claimant alleged that the bank converted the sum of £130,720 557.06 to U.S. dollars and subsequently to naira without its knowledge, mandate or authorisation.

    According to NICON Investment, the bank unilaterally managed the account and transferred N19,360,623,788.43 to settle the alleged indebtedness of Global Fleet’s account, while applying the remaining N9,437,097,276.57 to partially settle the claimant’s supposed debt.

    The claimant told the court that no meeting, correspondence, or agreement existed between the parties to liquidate any loan.

    “All actions on the pound sterling fixed deposit account by the defendant were unauthorised and contrary to the facility terms granted to the claimant,” Nicon Investment said.

    The claimant accused Union Bank of maligning Ibrahim in the media and alleging indebtedness while omitting that the debt was secured by deposits.

    Read Also: Court to rule on request to stop NASS from approving Rivers’ appointments, budgets

    Nicon Investment said it suffered significant damages due to the bank’s actions, including other illegal charges and wrongful penalties, which deprived it of the opportunity to utilise the funds for property business and expansion.

    But the bank contended that both the claimant (Nicon Investment) and its sister company (Global Fleet), as customers, operated various accounts and utilised loan facilities from the bank.

    “Both companies’ accounts were treated as related accounts with the knowledge and consent of both companies,” Union Bank stated.

    The defendant contended that it was unfair for the claimant, having benefited from the waiver of penalty charges, to claim that the bank could not apply the funds to settle the claimant and Global Fleet’s indebtedness after giving prior approval.

    Justice Abike-Fadipe entered judgment for the claimant against the bank in reliefs one to nine and 12 to 17.

    The judge held that the amount standing to the credit of the claimant in its fixed deposit account was to the tune of £130,720,557.06 as of April 30, 2010.

    “The defendant bank’s unilateral act of converting the sum…from the claimant’s fixed deposit account to US Dollars without the due authorisation and/or mandate of the claimant is wrongful, null and void,” the judge held.

    The judge added: “The defendant bank’s act of converting the fixed deposit of the claimant from British Pounds Sterling to US Dollars and Dollars to Naira is unauthorised and is null and void.

    “The pounds sterling fixed deposit account of the claimant is not tied to the indebtedness of Global Fleet Ltd and/or meant in any way or manner whatsoever to provide security for the said debt.

    “The defendant bank’s unilateral use of part of the claimant’s £130,720,557.06 to liquidate Global Fleet’s debt without the mandate and/or due authorisation of the claimant is wrongful, null and void.”

    The judge granted “an order setting aside all acts of the bank pertaining to the claimant’s pound sterling fixed deposit account”.

    The court awarded “£1million as damages for the bank’s breach of its fiduciary duties to the claimant and negligence”.

    Justice Abike-Fadipe dismissed the bank’s counterclaim in its entirety with N10 million costs.

    The judge added: “The third defendant to the counterclaim was not a necessary party to this suit and was wrongly joined…The joinder of the third defendant to the counterclaim in this suit was malicious.

    “Union Bank Plc ceases to have the power to pursue the alleged indebtedness upon the sale of the said alleged indebtedness to Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria.”

    Union Bank: we’ll appeal

    Union Bank, in a statement by its Chief Brand and Marketing Officer, Mrs. Olufunmilola Aluko, said it would appeal the judgment.

    The statement reads: “Union Bank of Nigeria acknowledges the recent judgment of Justice Abike Fadipe of the Ikeja High Court in the matter involving Senator Jimoh Ibrahim, NICON Investment Limited, Global Fleet, and the Bank.

    “We wish to assure our customers, partners, and the public that Union Bank operates with the highest levels of professionalism, ethical conduct, and legal compliance in all our dealings.

    “While we respect the authority of the court, we strongly disagree with the judgment delivered and have instructed our lawyers to file an appeal against it immediately.

    “The court’s findings, including its position on the consolidation of indebtedness, locus standi, and third-party liability, are at variance with established legal principles and the Bank’s understanding of the facts.

    “We are confident in our legal position and intend to vigorously pursue all lawful avenues to ensure that justice is served.

    “Union Bank had previously transferred the relevant debt obligations to AMCON, and we maintain that all actions taken in this regard were in line with applicable laws and banking practice.

    “We reiterate our unwavering commitment to acting in good faith, protecting stakeholder interests, and preserving the integrity that has defined our institution for over a century.

    “The Bank remains resilient and focused on continuing to deliver excellent service and value to its customers.

    “We appreciate the continued trust and support of all stakeholders as we navigate this legal process.”

  • Court nullifies arbitration proceedings in Tempo Energy suit

    Court nullifies arbitration proceedings in Tempo Energy suit

    The Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Abuja has nullified the arbitration proceedings at the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), London, instituted against indigenous energy giant, Aiteo Eastern E&P Company Limited, by a group of lenders that partly financed its acquisition of OML 29, declaring its conduct a violation of the injunctive orders of the court.

    Aiteo acquired OML 29 and the Nembe Creek Trunk Line (NCTL) from Shell in a landmark transaction in 2014 that closed at around $3.01 billion, with billionaire founder, Benedict Peters, contributing about $1 billion in personal fortune to conclude the deal and restart production.

    Justice S.B. Belgore nullified the ICC proceedings on Tuesday while ruling in an application brought before it by Tempo Energy Nigeria Ltd.

    According to court documents, the claims arose from a multi-party financing arrangement dating back to 2014, under which Tempo alleged that the defendants breached their obligations under the governing facility agreements. 

    It claimed that several of the defendants had, on December 11, 2020, initiated proceedings in the High Court of England and Wales and commenced arbitration before the ICC in London without joining it as a party.

    To protect its interests, Tempo instituted a suit on January 14, 2021, seeking injunctive reliefs to restrain the defendants from taking further steps in the pending proceedings and arbitration.

    Marked FCT/HC/CV/079/2021, Aiteo Eastern E&P Company Ltd, African Finance Corporation, Ecobank Nigeria Ltd, First Bank of Nigeria, Guaranty Trust Bank, Fidelity Bank, Shell Western Supply & Trading, Shell International Trading & Shipping, Citibank Europe (UK Branch), Citibank N.A. (London Branch), FBN Trustees, Zenith Trustees, FBN Merchant Bank, Sterling Bank, Union Bank, Zenith Bank, and Dame Elizabeth Gloster, were listed as defendants.

    In another application by Tempo Energy, filed through its counsel, Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN), the FCT High Court, on January 22, 2021, granted interim orders of injunction, restraining the defendants from taking any further steps in the English proceedings and the ICC arbitration pending the hearing of the motion on notice. 

    It also consolidated pending applications filed by the parties and adjourned the matter for hearing.

    Dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, the Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division.

    Despite the subsistence of the interim orders of the FCT High Court, the defendants proceeded with the ICC arbitration in London between 2021 and 2024 in defiance of the subsisting injunctive orders of the court.

    In its unanimous judgement delivered on April 25, 2025, the appellate court affirmed the validity and subsistence of the interim orders of January 22, 2021. 

    Read Also: My Abuja office sealed without court order, SAN alleges

    Dismissing the appeal as an abuse of process, the court awarded costs of N1.5 million against the defendants.

     It also ordered an accelerated hearing of the pending applications before the High Court and reaffirmed that parties must maintain the status quo while litigation is pending, warning that steps taken in violation of subsisting court orders may be deemed void.

    Following the judgement of the Court of Appeal, at the resumed hearing before the FCT High Court on 20th, 21st, and 22nd May 2025, Ogunwumiju, on behalf of Tempo Energy, applied for a restorative order to set aside the ICC arbitration proceedings conducted in London, contending that the arbitral proceedings were conducted in flagrant defiance of the subsisting injunctive orders of the court.

    While opposing the application, Mrs Joke Aliyu and Mr Babatunde Fagbohunlu, SAN, who appeared for Ecobank Nigeria and other defendants, filed a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction on the grounds that the court lacked the competence to restrain foreign arbitral proceedings.

    Ruling on Tuesday, July 8, Justice Belgore dismissed the preliminary objection, declaring it incompetent and lacking in merit. According to the court, the preliminary objection constituted an abuse of the court process. Consequently, it granted Tempo Energy’s application, declaring the ICC arbitration proceedings in London, conducted in violation of the injunctive orders of the court, as null and void.

    The court further reiterated that the interim orders of injunction granted on January 22, 2021, remained valid, subsisting, and binding on all parties to the suit. It directed all parties to comply fully with the subsisting orders and to refrain from taking any further steps in defiance of the court’s orders.

    The court also ordered the defendants to pay N500,000 in costs to Tempo Energy and adjourned the case to September 29, 2025, for the hearing of the consolidated interlocutory applications.

    Aiteo had first sued Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria a few years after acquiring the company’s 30 per cent stake in the lucrative asset, alleging fraud, deceit and misrepresentation of facts in the sale.

    In a suit, FHC/ABJ/ C8/738/2021, dated July 27, 2021, before a Federal High Court in Abuja, Aiteo accused Shell of not fully disclosing the true position of the oil wells to it at the time of the sale, despite receiving the full amount required for the sale. It asked the court to award it $2.5 billion in compensation.

    According to the company, the poor condition of the asset, as well as the constant attacks on its production infrastructure by crude oil thieves, made it difficult to produce and thus prevented it from fulfilling its financial responsibilities to creditors.

    The consortium of lenders that committed $USD 2 billion according to data include Zenith – $323m, First Bank & GTB – $200m each, Fidelity Bank – $175m, AFC – $125m, Ecobank Nigeria & Union Bank – $100m each, Sterling Bank – $60m and Shell Western –$512m.

    Peters’ initial equity contribution for the purchase was $898, 237, 697.35 in cash with an additional $257m injected at closing for fees and other ancillary costs as well as funds to restart production, according to bank documents seen by our correspondent Other small equity holders like Tempo Energy contributed $136 million.

  • Court to rule on request to stop NASS from approving Rivers’ appointments, budgets

    Court to rule on request to stop NASS from approving Rivers’ appointments, budgets

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled a ruling for July 18 on a motion seeking to restrain the National Assembly from further engaging in any legislative activities, including approving appointments or budgets of the Rivers state government under the current Sole Administrator.

    Justice James Omotosho chose the date on Wednesday after taking arguments in relation to the motion for interlocutory injunction filed by the plaintiffs in a suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1190/2025.

    The suit was instituted by some indigens of River State and a group, the Registered Trustees of Hope Africa Foundation.

    Other plaintiffs are King Oziwe Amba, Chief Julius Bulous, Chief George Ikeme, Chief Amachelu Orlu and Prince Odioha Wembe.

    Listed as defendants in the suit are the National Assembly and the Clerk of the National Assembly.

    Arguing the motion on Wednesday, plaintiffs’ lawyer, Ambrose Owuru, prayed the court to grant restraining the defendants from further acting on any requests from the emergency government in Rivers State pending the determination of the substantive suit, challenging the legality of the state of emergency declared in the state by President Bola Tinubu.

    Owuru contended that the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State is without the required legislative approval because the voice votes adopted by the National Assembly in approve the emergency rule were unconstitutional.

    The plaintiffs stated, in a supporting affidavit, that since they filed the suit, the activities of the respondents “have centred on approvals of illegal appointments and budget made and forwarded by the illegal administrator foisted on the applicants, Rivers State amid protests and rising restiveness in the state.

    “The respondents, despite all the illegality and unconstitutionality of the foisted state of emergency on Rivers State outside the clear provisions of the 1999 constitution prohibiting state the emergency any part of the federating unit unless the governor of the state is aware and had failed to invite or request for such within a reasonable time, the respondents have engaged in constituting committees to run and spend funds of the applicants Rivers State.

    Read Also: Alleged age falsification, forgery: Court orders IGP to produce five ex-senior officers for trial

    “Unless this honorable court grants this application, the defendants/respondents will continue in the illegalities and unconstitutionality of their invented ‘voice votes’ in place of the actual constitutionally approved two third votes to support the state of emergency in Rivers State to engage in sheer political vendetta and promote political dispute and disorderliness among the citizens and Nigeria as a whole.

    “The grant of this application will protect and preserve the applicants’ legal rights to be governed by an elected government of their choice in the present democratic setting in Nigeria,” the plaintiffs said.

    In his counterargument, lawyer to the National Assembly and its Clerk, Mohammed Galadima, urged the court to reject the motion for interlocutory injunction, arguing that it is without merit.

    The National Assembly and its Clerk stated, in a supporting affidavit, that the facts deposed to in the plaintiffs’ supporting affidavit to the motion “are contrived falsehood and calculated misrepresentation of the facts as they occurred.”

    They argued that there has never been any illegality in their actions and that there is no breach of the Constitution as alleged by the applicants/plaintiffs

    The defendants also faulted the plaintiffs’ claim that the emergency rule was a violation of their fundamental rights to be governed by a democratically elected government.

    The National Assembly and its Clerk said they would be seriously prejudiced by the grant of the motion as it would create pandemonium and confusion in the governance of Rivers State.

    They added that the grant of the motion will not be in the interest of justice.

  • Alleged age falsification, forgery: Court orders IGP to produce five ex-senior officers for trial

    Alleged age falsification, forgery: Court orders IGP to produce five ex-senior officers for trial

    A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) has ordered the Inspector General of Police (IGP) to do all within his powers to produce five former senior police officers for prosecution on charges of forgery and age falsification.

    Justice Halilu Yusuf issued the order on Tuesday after prosecuting lawyer, Rimamsomte Ezekiel, expressed disappointment that the defendants were absent in court despite being served with the charge.

    Justice Yusuf said, “You are the prosecutor. You should do all within your powers to ensure that the defendants attend court on the next adjourned date for arraignment.”

    Justice Yusuf subsequently adjourned till September 25 for the prosecution to produce the five defendants.

    The five ex-senior police officers are: AIG Idowu Owohunwa (Rtd), CP Benneth Igweh (Rtd), CP Ukachi Peter Opara (Rtd), DCP Obo Ukam Obo (Rtd), ACP Simon A. Lough SAN (Rtd), listed as defendants in a 14-count charge brought against them by the Inspector General of Police (IGP).

    In the charge marked: CR/353/2025 Owohunwa, Igwe, Opera, Obo and Lough are charged with, among others, conspiracy, age falsification and forgery.

    At the commencement of proceedings on Tuesday, Ezekiel noted that the defendants were absent from court.

    He told the court that the five defendants had all been served with the charge as required by law and that they were expected to be in court for their arraignment.

    Ezekiel said, “The defendants have all been served with the charge last week, on Thursday. They were all informed to be in court today, but none of them is in court.

    “We find it difficult to ask for a bench warrant because they have not been arraigned before this court,” Ezekiel said.

    He subsequently applied for an adjournment to enable the prosecution to produce the defendants for arraignment.

    Read Also: Alleged N110.4b fraud: Court fixes July 17 for ruling on Yahaya Bello’s request to travel abroad

    Some counts in the charge read:

    *That you, AIG Idowu Owohunwa (Rtd), CP Benneth Igweh (Rtd), CP Ukachi Peter Opara (Rtd), DCP Obo Ukam Obo (Rtd), ACP Simon A. Lough SAN (Rtd) and others who are now at large, being members of force entrants of the Nigeria Police Force on or about 1999 till date in FCT Abuja, committed the offence of conspiracy with intent to commit criminal offence punishable under Section 97 (1) (2) of the Penal Code Law.

    *That you AIG Idowu Owohunwa, (Rtd), CP Benneth Igweh (Rtd), CP Ukachi Peter Opara (Rtd), DCP Obo Ukam Obo (Rtd), ACP Simon A. Lough SAN (Rtd) and others who are now at large, who are members of force entrants of the Nigeria Police Force on or till January, 2025 in FCT Abuja, falsified and altered your ages and documents in the name of Nigeria Police Force in which you failed and could not vacate from office when you supposed to leave on retirement in line with Public Service Rule of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, remained and illegally benefited the privileges of your office and thereby committed offence of cheating, and punishable under Section 324 of the Penal Code Law.

    *That you AIG Idowu Owohunwa (Rtd) on or about 30th April, 2021 in FCT Abuja, as a member of force entrants of the Nigeria Police Force Course 19 issued directives in the name of the Inspector-General of Police on the implementation of judgments, judgment which you know to be by fraud with fake and falsified documents and thereby committed the above offence punishable under Section 178 of the Penal Code Law.

    *That you ACP Simon A. Lough SAN (Rtd) on or about 25″ day of March, 2025 in FCT Abuja, dishonestly and fraudulently depose to process of court in the case of AIG Idowu Owohunwa & 2 others v. PSC & 7 others, suit No: NICN/ABJ/88/2025A that you have only served for 25 years in the Nigeria Police Force, knowing that, you are lying and also dishonest when you enlisted into the Nigeria Police Force on 1st August, 1987 and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 158(1) of the Penal Code Law.

    *That you AIG Idowu Owohunwa (Rtd) on or about December, 2024 in Abuja, with intent to remain serving in the Nigeria Police Force against the provision of the public Service Rules of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, dishonestly falsified and submitted to the Nigeria Police Force Record, a declaration of age dated 4th April, 1990 Kogi State of Nigeria, that you are born on 20 July, 1970 and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 366 of the Penal Code Law.

    *That you CP Benneth Igwe (Rtd) on or about December, 2024 in Abuja, committed the offence of age falsification in that you enlisted into the Nigeria Police Force on 1st May, 1988 on record that you were born on 7th October, 1964, and investigation revealed that you altered your age to be that you are born on 7th October, 1968 and also that you enlisted into the Nigeria Police in 1996, you thereby committed offence punishable under Section 366 of the Penal Code Law.

    *That you ACP Simon A. Louph SAN (Rtd) on or about July, 2022 in FCT Abuja, committed offence of falsifying your age in order to remain serving in the Nigeria Police Force in that, when you enlisted into the Nigeria Police Force on 1st August, 1987 on record, you were born on 14th May, 1967, you dishonestly and fraudulently altered and fake your age to be 14th May, 1969 against Public Service Rule of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and also knowing that you have retired but remain in office beyond Ist August, 2022 till January, 2025 and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 161 of the Penal Code Law.

  • Alleged N110.4b fraud: Court fixes July 17 for ruling on Yahaya Bello’s request to travel abroad

    Alleged N110.4b fraud: Court fixes July 17 for ruling on Yahaya Bello’s request to travel abroad

    A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) has scheduled a ruling for July 17 on an application by the former Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello, seeking the court’s permission to travel abroad for medical attention.

    Justice Maryanne Anenih chose the date on Tuesday after taking arguments for and against the application.

    Bello is being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) with Umar Oricha (Director General, Kogi State Government House) and Abdulsalami Hudu on a 16-count charge.

    The EFCC is, in the charge, alleging criminal breach of trust to the tune of N110.4billion.

    At the commencement of proceedings on Tuesday, Bello’s lawyer, Joseph Daudu (SAN), told the court about his client’s filing on June 20, 2025.

    Daudu said, “It seeks an order for the release of the 1st defendant/applicant’s international airport by the Registrar of this court to enable him to travel for medical attention.”

    Bello submitted his passport to the court in fulfilment of the conditions attached to the bail granted him by the court.

    Prosecuting lawyer, Chukwudi Enebeli (SAN) faulted the application and described it as an abuse of the court’s process.

    Enebeli noted that Bello had filed a similar application before a Federal High Court in Abuja, before which he is being prosecuted on a separate charge.

    He added that, by filing the same application at both the FCT High Court and Federal High Court, the ex-governor was setting the courts on a collision course.

    Enebeli said if the Federal High Court refuses that application and the High Court of the FCT grants it, such a development could make a mockery of the judicial system.

    Read Also: Yahaya Bello: When ‘persecution’ becomes national embarrassment

    He argued that the defendant should have notified his sureties about his application to travel out of the country.

    According to him, the sureties are required to decide whether they would want to continue to stand as sureties for him when he travels.

    Responding, Daudu contended that the decision of his client to file the application cannot amount to an abuse because it was the complainant (the EFCC) that chose to file separate charges against the defendant in different counts.

    Daudu added, “It will be a futile exercise to apply in one court and not to apply in the other court.”

    He said Bello’s sureties were already aware of the application and needed not to be put on notice

    The defence lawyer, while praying the court to grant the application, added: “He (Bello) has never flouted your lordship’s order.”

  • Court grants interim injunction in Hampton Estate dispute

    Court grants interim injunction in Hampton Estate dispute

    The Lagos State High Court sitting at Tapa has granted an interim injunction restraining real estate developer, Kennedy Okonkwo, his company Capital Gardens Limited, and media personality Azuka Francisca Ogujiuba from further publishing or republishing allegedly defamatory statements against Ikenna Jideofor and Adewale Oladapo.

    The interim injunction, which is to last for 14 days from the date of the order, was granted pending compliance with pre-action protocols, the filing of the substantive suit, and the hearing and determination of any motion for an interlocutory injunction.

    The court barred the defendants from disseminating further versions of two publications dated May 23 and 28, 2025.

    The publications are entitled: “Beware of Buying Hampton Estate from Ikenna Jideofor & Adewale Oladapo,” and “Beware: Ikenna Jideofor of Premium Homes and Adewale Oladapo of Oretol are hurriedly building on lands they do not own.”

    Justice T.B. Sunmonu made the order after being satisfied that there was real urgency in the matter and that irreparable harm could occur if the reliefs sought were not granted.

    The court also held that granting the injunction was in the interest of justice.

    The suit was instituted by Ikenna Jideofor Ogbu and Premium Homes and Property Consultant Ltd (the Claimants/Applicants) through their counsel, Adedayo Adedeji (SAN), in Suit No. LD/5250CMW/2025.

    In the ex-parte motion, brought pursuant to Orders 42 and 43 of the Lagos State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019, and the Expeditious Disposal of Civil Cases Practice Direction No. 2 of 2019, the applicants sought multiple reliefs.

    Read Also: Court restrains defendants from Hampton estate land sale

    Among the orders granted by the court were: “An interim injunction restraining the defendants and their agents or privies from further publishing or causing to be republished the alleged defamatory statements mentioned above.

    “An order compelling the defendants to retract all defamatory posts made against the claimants on social media and electronic platforms, particularly on the third defendant’s Instagram handle, @mediaroomhub.

    “An order directing service of the interim injunction through publication in two widely circulated national newspapers and on all electronic and social media platforms where the defamatory publications appeared.”

    The orders are to remain in force for 14 days, inclusive of the date the ruling was delivered.

  • Court dismisses suit filed in name of deceased

    Court dismisses suit filed in name of deceased

    The Rivers State High Court in Port Harcourt has dismissed a land recovery suit filed by Lawrence Anucha, son of the late Dr. Dominic Anucha, a former Deputy Governor of Rivers State, citing it as an abuse of the court process.

    In suit PHC/233/CS/2025, Lawrence Anucha sued to reclaim a parcel of land originally allocated to his late father and later sold 27 years ago to Rockson Enearu, the defendant and current property owner in Port Harcourt’s GRA.

    Defendant’s counsel, Ozununye Geoffrey Nsirim, questioned the legitimacy of the filings, noting that court documents appeared to have been submitted under two similar identities—Dominic Anucha and Lawrence Dominic Anucha—raising concerns about how the suit was initiated.

    He argued that the claimant’s application to discontinue the suit was a strategic move to avoid the implications of procedural irregularities already identified in the case.

    Although the claimant sought to withdraw the case, the court held that the matter had progressed beyond the preliminary stage as issues had been joined, and affidavits—including a motion for joinder and a counter-affidavit—had been filed, with no further challenge by the claimant.

    Read Also: Women coalition urges Senate to Appeal Court ruling reinstating Natasha

    Justice Rita Oguguo ruled that at such an advanced stage, a withdrawal amounted to an effective admission of defeat and warranted dismissal rather than a mere striking out of the matter.

    “This court finds that the claimant/applicant’s application for discontinuance, though to be allowed, appears intended to avoid the consequences of the issues raised in the Defendant/Respondent’s unchallenged affidavits.

    “The joinder of issues and adduction of evidence via affidavits preclude striking out, as the matter has progressed beyond procedural stages.”

    The court agreed with the defendant that the claimant’s conduct and the resources expended in responding to the suit warranted an award of costs. The judge accordingly ordered the claimant to pay N300,000 to the defendant.

    “Accordingly, this court accepts the application of the claimant to withdraw the matter and same is hereby granted.

    “However, the court rejects the application to strike out the suit. Rather, the suit is liable to and is hereby dismissed. The claimant is to pay the defendant cost assessed at N300,000 only,” the judgment concluded.

  • Alleged $854K, N590m fraud: Court fixes July 22 for ruling on Afriq Arbitrage CEO’s third bail request

    Alleged $854K, N590m fraud: Court fixes July 22 for ruling on Afriq Arbitrage CEO’s third bail request

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled July 22 for ruling on fresh bail request by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the cryptocurrency trading platform – Afriq Arbitrage System (AAS) – Jesam Michael Ubi

    Michael is being prosecuted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on a seven-count charge bordering on money laundering, advance fee fraud, among others, relating to an alleged investment fraud involving $844,416.36, $10,000, and N590 million.

    Justice Obiora Egwatu chose the date on Monday after Michael’s new lawyer, Kanu Agabi (SAN) argued his fresh bail application, which was opposed by lawyer to the prosecution, Geraldine Ofulue.

    Agabi, a former Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, assured the court, among others, that the defendant would not jump bail in view of the caliber of his legal team.

    However, Ofulue reminded the court that it had previously declined the defendant bail on numerous grounds, including that his safety was more guaranteed in prison custody than being allowed on bail in view of the number of his alleged victims, estimated to be over 500,000.

    Justice Egwuatu had, on May 9, 2025, while acting as a vacation judge, refused an earlier bail application by Michael on the grounds that a charge had already been filed against him.

    He held that Michael must first be arraigned before any bail request could be considered.

    In another ruling on June 10 Justice Egwuatu rejected the defendant’s bail application and ordered that he be remanded in prison pending trial.

    The judge noted that, as stated by the EFCC more petitions were still being received by the anti-graft agency and other security agencies from victims of the crimes allegedly committed by the defendant.

    He noted the claim by the EFCC that there were over 50,000 investors in Michael’s failed investment scheme and that the victims were aggrieved and it would be in his own safety to remain in custody pending the conclusion of the trial.

    The judge ordered accelerated hearing in the case and directed that the defendant be transferred from the custody of the EFCC custody to Kuje prison pending the conclusion of trial.

    The judge, who noted that investment fraud is becoming rampant in the country, adjourned till June 20 for the commencement of trial.

    Trial had since commenced, with the prosecution calling two witnesses until Agabi filed the fresh bail application.

    In the charge, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/134/2025, the EFCC accused Michael and his cryptocurrency trading platform – Afriq Arbitrage System (AAS) Ltd – of defrauding his customers to the tune of 854,416.36 U.S dollars and N590 million.

    The EFCC alleged that Michael and his firm, between September 2022 and June 2023 in Abuja, while not being a bank or an authorised entity to take deposits, invited the public through advertisements to deposit funds with Afriq Arbitrage System Limited.

    Read Also: Women coalition urges Senate to Appeal Court ruling reinstating Natasha

    This, according to the commission, is in contravention of Section 44(1) of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act, 2020, and is punishable under the same Act.

    The EFCC also accused Michael and his company of engaging in the specialised business of financial services, including investment management, without a valid license.

    The defendants were alleged to have between October and December 2024 in Abuja, “converted the cumulative sum of N590 million being part of the funds generated from the sale of properties recovered from Oluwasesan Abayomi, knowing that the funds constituted proceeds of unlawful activity.”

    The offence, the EFCC said, is contrary to Section 18(2)(b) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act.

    They were equally alleged to have, sometime in 2022 in Abuja, with intent to defraud, induced Ladi Musa Audu to deposit the sum of $844,416.36 USDT into the Afriq Arbitrage System investment scheme, under the false representation that the investment was safe and refundable upon request. 

    The EFCC said the offence is contrary to Section 1(2) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act No. 14 of 2006 and punishable under Section 1(3) of the same Act, among other counts.

  • Licensed agents hail court ruling on autonomy

    Licensed agents hail court ruling on autonomy

    President, National Council of Managing Directors of Licensed Customs Agents (NCMDLCA), Lucky Amiwero, at the weekend, commended the recent judgment of the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos affirming that the Council for the Regulation of Freight Forwarding in Nigeria (CRFFN) and the Ministry of Transportation have no statutory authority to regulate the business or operations of Licensed Customs Agents (LCAs).

    Amiwero described the ruling as a significant step towards restoring professional autonomy and easing the operational burdens placed on agents over the years, during a national press conference at the NCMDLCA Secretariat in Lagos.

     “This is not just a legal win—it is the liberation of Licensed Customs Agents who have faced operational challenges for nearly two decades,” he said.

    The judgment, delivered in suit No. FHC/CS/765/2018, clarified that the regulation of LCAs is governed exclusively by the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA), under the purview of the Minister of Finance and the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS). It declared unlawful a 2017 directive that had made registration with CRFFN and the payment of Practitioners Operating Fees (POF) a requirement for port access and licence renewals by LCAs.

    In delivering the judgement, Justice Daniel Osiagor ruled that: “The regulation of Licensed Customs Agents is governed squarely by the Customs and Excise Management Act.

     “Only the Minister of Finance, acting through the Nigeria Customs Service, is statutorily authorized to regulate the business and operation of Licensed Customs Agents,” the Court held.

    The court further drew a clear distinction between Licensed Customs Agents and Freight Forwarders, asserting that both are separate professions regulated by different legal instruments.

     “Licensed Customs Agent (LCA) is a distinct profession from Freight Forwarders. The CRFFN Act established a Council to regulate Freight Forwarders—a profession distinct from Licensed Customs Agents,” the judgment stated.

    Read Also: Niger Delta ex-agitators applaud Tinubu for backing NDDC boss amid smear campaigns

    The ruling invalidated the 2017 directive and restrained CRFFN from imposing any form of registration, clearance, or fee requirement on LCAs. It affirmed the rights of duly licensed agents to access seaports, airports, and land borders based solely on their accreditation by the NCS.

     “The directive of the Minister of Transportation published in the Vanguard Newspaper of August 1, 2017, is declared null and void as it relates to Licensed Customs Agents,” the court concluded.

    Amiwero noted that while the legal victory is important, the broader objective is to create a clearer regulatory environment for customs operations.

     “This is not just about money. It is about ensuring that the role of Licensed Customs Agents is properly defined and respected under the law,” he said.

    He assured stakeholders that the Council would work closely with the relevant authorities to ensure the judgment is implemented effectively and without disruption to trade.

    According to the NCMDLCA boss, the Council will pursue recovery of funds collected based on the now-invalidated directive. He however refrained from placing a monetary value on the expected refund.

     “We will follow the appropriate legal processes to address the financial implications of the ruling. What matters most is that our members can now operate without undue constraints,” he said.

    He also expressed readiness to engage any appeal process that may follow, stating that the NCMDLCA has consistently pursued its cases through lawful channels.

     “We are not afraid of appeal. We have confidence in the legal system and we believe in the strength of our case,” he said.

    Legal experts believe the ruling reinforces constitutional principles by preventing regulatory overreach that could impose financial obligations without statutory backing.

     “This judgment reinforces the doctrine that statutory bodies cannot impose fees or regulatory hurdles outside their enabling laws. It’s a significant precedent for regulatory certainty in Nigeria’s port sector,” a maritime lawyer, Onyekachi Abraham, told The Nation.

    For businesses operating across Nigeria’s maritime and logistics value chain, the ruling carries far-reaching consequences. By eliminating the POF for LCAs, the judgment promises a reduction in transaction costs that stakeholders say could enhance competitiveness and ease of doing business at Nigerian ports.

     “The court’s decision removes one layer of cost and bureaucracy from port operations. This should reduce costs for importers and exporters and enhance efficiency in cargo clearance,” a Lagos-based senior maritime consultant, who preferred anonymity, said.

    However, the financial implications for the CRFFN, and potentially the federal government, could be substantial, according to experts. If customs agents succeed in recovering fees collected since the directive’s implementation, the refunds could amount to billions of naira, posing a significant revenue liability for the government.

     “There could be fiscal consequences if refunds are pursued and awarded. Depending on the sums involved, it could impact the cash flow of CRFFN and government allocations for port infrastructure projects,” the maritime lawyer added.

    The ruling is expected to simplify regulatory compliance for LCAs and may enhance port efficiency by removing overlapping mandates. Industry analysts have described it as a positive development for Nigeria’s maritime sector and for the overall ease of doing business.