By Lukman Olabiyi
The Federal High Court, Lagos, has dismissed a suit filed by Woobs Resources Limited, Sandworth Properties Limited and the Director, Woobs Resources Limited, Mr. Whoba Ugwunna Ogo, against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer, Woobs Resources Ltd, Mr. James Uchechukwu Onyemenam.
Justice I.N Oweibo held that Onyemenam, the second respondent in the suit, is still a shareholder and director of Woobs Resources Limited, the first applicant.
The applicants had, in suit no FHC/L/CS/1351/22, dated July 15, 2022, asked the court to restrain the EFCC from investigating the management of the companies (first and second applicants) or meddling with their activities.
The applicants, in their originating summons by their counsel, Victor Ukutt, told the court that EFCC has no power to meddle with the civil suit between the applicants and the second respondent and, therefore, prayed the court to declare that, it is unlawful for the EFCC to interfere or investigate the management and private businesses of the first and second applicants.
The third applicant (Ogo) stated that the second respondent (Onyemenam) is not a shareholder and has no right to petition the EFCC. He added that the petition was based on the civil dispute between the first and third applicants on one part and the second respondent on the other part, which dispute is pending at the Court of Appeal.
The third applicant alleged that EFCC sealed off his properties and blocked his account, noting that he couldn’t access his account to take care of his ill health abroad, as well as paying his staff.
However, the anti-graft agency and the second respondent also filed their response to the suit. EFCC argued that it received a petition dated April 6, 2021 against the third applicant, signed by the second respondent on behalf of the first applicant, alleging fraudulent conversion and diversion of funds of the first applicant.
Onyemenam’s petition is Exhibit EFCC1. The first respondent analysed the petition and found it worthy of investigation. The petition was referred to the Bank Fraud Unit of the first respondent.
First respondent said as part of its standard operating procedure, it issued letters of investigation activities to various organisations, financial institutions and individuals, including the third applicant. Exhibit EFCC 3 is a copy of the letter to the third applicant. The first respondent said that the third applicant refused to honour the invitation, but remains at large; that its investigation shows that the applicants have concluded arrangements to dissipate and sell off some of the properties which are proceeds of crime; that as a preventive measure, the applicants instituted Suit No: FHC/L/CS/1091/2022, which is now pending before the court, to prevent the conclusion of investigations.
Onyemenam, the second respondent, said by virtue of the Joint Venture Agreement, the third applicant (Ogo) transferred 275,000 shares he held in the Woobs Resources Limited, (first applicant) to him, whereupon he became the holder of 55 percent of the authorised share capital of the first applicant and consequently he became the managing director and chief executive of the first applicant, while the third applicant (Ogo) was an executive director. He stated that for the smooth running of the joint venture operations, bank accounts were opened in six banks.
The second respondent said immediately after the third applicant purportedly removed him and forcefully took over the management of the company, the third applicant illegally changed the signature mandate of the first applicant’s accounts, opened many other accounts and incorporated the second applicant through which he siphoned the finances of the first applicant.
The third applicant is the owner and alter ego of the second applicant through which he was stealing and laundering the proceeds of his theft from the first applicant, funds used for the properties now being investigated by the first respondent.
The second respondent said as the stealing of the funds of the first applicant continued unabated, he petitioned the EFCC for an investigation into the criminal activities of the second and third applicants. He also exhibited a copy of the petition Exhibit J5; that the third applicant was never sick, but only relocated with his family to the United States of America soon after the EFCC investigation commenced.
However, Justice Oweibo, in the judgement, held that it had been shown that the second respondent, in the performance of his civic and constitutional duty, reported the suspicious activities of the third applicant to the EFCC. The court, therefore, awarded cost of N100,000.00 against the applicants in favour of each of the respondents.