Justice Nicholas Oweibo of the Federal High Court, Lagos, has dismissed a suit filed by Woobs Resources Limited, Sandworth Properties Limited and Mr. Whoba Ugwunna Ogo (a director of Woobs Resources Ltd.) against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and Mr. James Uchechukwu Onyemenam (the Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer of Woobs Resources Ltd.)
The court 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 in 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 1st and 2nd applicants.
The third applicant (Ogo) stated that 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 1st and 3rd applicants on one part and the 2nd 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 staffs.
However, the anti-graft agency and second Respondent also filed their response to the suit. EFCC argued that it received a petition dated April 6, 2021 against the 3rd applicant, signed by the 2nd respondent on behalf of the 1st applicant, alleging fraudulent conversion and diversion of funds of the first applicant.
Onyemenam’s petition is Exhibit EFCC1. The 1st respondent analysed the petition and found it worthy of investigation. The petition was referred to the Bank Fraud Unit of the 1st respondent.
First respondent said that as part of its standard operating procedure, it issued letters of investigation activities to various organisations, financial institutions and individuals, including the 3rd applicant. Exhibit EFCC 3 is a copy of the letter to the 3rd applicant. The 1st respondent said that the 3rd 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 2nd respondent said that by virtue of the Joint Venture Agreement, the 3rd Applicant (Ogo) transferred 275,000 shares he held in the Woobs Resources Limited, (1st applicant) to him whereupon he became the holder of 55 per cent 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 3rd 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.
According to the 2nd respondent, immediately after the 3rd applicant purportedly removed him and forcefully took over the management of the company, the 3rd applicant illegally changed the signature mandate of the 1st applicant’s accounts, opened many other accounts and incorporated the 2nd applicant through which he siphoned the finances of the 1st applicant.
The third applicant is the owner and alter ego of the 2nd applicant through which he was stealing and laundering the proceeds of his theft from the 1st applicant, funds used for the properties now being investigated by the 1st respondent.
The second respondent said that as the stealing of the funds of the 1st applicant continued unabated, he petitioned the EFCC for an investigation into the criminal activities of the 2nd and 3rd applicants.
He also exhibited a copy of the petition Exhibit J5; that the 3rd 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 judgment held that evidence available has shown that the 2nd respondent, in the performance of his civic and constitutional duty, reported the suspicious activities of the 3rd applicant to the EFCC.
The judge, citing a plethora of decided cases, held that, “so as it is, the 2nd respondent is still a shareholder and director of the 1st applicant, and so, was entitled, as he did, to lodge the complaint on behalf of the first applicant.
The court further held that Section 24(e) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) places a duty on all citizens to render assistance to appropriate and lawful agencies in the maintenance of law and order.
On the first respondent’s activities, the court held that, the maintenance of law and order includes, the detection, investigation and prevention of crimes or the commission of criminal offences under the laws: see Samson vs. I.G.P & Ors (2020) LPELR-50065 (CA).
The Judge further said that one aspect of such duties is to report the Commission of crime: see Udo vs. Essien (2014) LPELR- 22684 (CA). “That duty in my view is not limited to where the citizen is a victim of the crime, including one who is not a member of a company.”
“The first respondent by the powers vested in it was duty bound to investigate. The 3rd question is accordingly answered in the affirmative. In all, the questions for determination are resolved against the applicants. The reliefs are refused and this suit is dismissed.”
The court, therefore, awarded cost of N100,000 against the applicants in favour of each of the respondents.
