Tag: Court

 

Justice I.E. Ekwo of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has ordered businesswoman Aisha Achimugu to appear before the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on Tuesday, in connection with an investigation on Tuesday at noon.

Justice Ekwo, who gave the order in a ruling, also ordered the EFCC, upon the appearance of Achimugu at its office, to return with her to court on Wednesday for report.

The development followed an application by Achimugu’s counsel, Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, for an order to protect her client from being detained or harassed by the EFCC following her decision to honour the commission’s invitation for continuation of investigation.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Justice Ekwo had, on April 11, ordered the EFCC and five other security agencies to file their defence in a suit instituted by Achimugu to stop her planned arrest and detention.
Other security agencies listed in the fundamental rights enforcement suit are the Nigeria Police Force (NPF), Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), and State Security Service (SSS).
They also include the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) and the Nigerian Immigration Service (NIS).
The judge had given the order following a complaint by Ogunwumiju that despite being served with the earlier order of the court for respondents to show cause why the applicant’s prayers should not be granted, none of them was in court as directed.
Achimugu, an industrialist, had in an ex-parte motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/626/2025, sued the NPF, ICPC and SSS as 1st to 3rd respondents.
The applicant, through her lawyer, also joined the EFCC, NSCDC and NIS as 4th to 6th respondents respectively in the motion dated and filed April 3.
She sought an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from threatening or harassing her with arrest, detention and invasion of her “properties or threatening to impede her fundamental right to freedom of movement, liberty, privacy and properties,” among others.
While given 10 grounds why her application should be granted, Achimugu said on March 28, the EFCC declared her wanted.
She said that her declaration as ‘wanted’ was unwarranted, unjustifiable, devoid of probable cause, and is calculated to discredit, humiliate, and subject her to public opprobrium, thereby causing irreparable harm to her reputation, personal dignity, and professional standing.
On April 11, the judge had given the respondents the last opportunity to appear before him to show cause why Achimugu’s reliefs should not be granted and adjourned until today for hearing.
When the matter was called on Monday, ICPC, SSS, EFCC and NIS were represented in court.
Ogunwumiju informed the court that the matter was scheduled for the respondents to show cause.
He said the respondents served on them their counter affidavits about closing hours on Friday together with applications for extension of time.
He said he was yet to received any process from 1st, 5th and 6th respondents (police, NSCDC and NIS).
Ogunwumiju said they had indicated that Achimugu.would be returning to Nigeria on Tuesday and she would be reporting to the EFCC’s office by 12 noon.
He said he thought the respondents would have responded to their application on time so that all could be taken today.
The lawyer, however, did not oppose to the motion.for an extension of time to file their processes moved by counsel to the ICPC, G.O. Ndieze, and that of the EFCC, Ekele Iheanacho, SAN, and it granted by the court.
Ogunwumiju said he would like to highlight certain uncontroverted facts before the court.
He said in the affidavit in support of their originating processes, Achimugu had indicated that she would return and attend her interview before the EFCC on April 29.
“Particularly at paragraph 61, she has indicated her willingness to cooperate with the investigation,” he said.
The lawyer, however, said that in the affidavit to show cause filed by the EFCC, tye commission averred in Paragraphs 9 and 10 that his client was earlier admitted to administrative bail.
Ogunwumiju, therefore, prayed the court to order her client to return on Tuesday,, report to EFCC and continue on the same bail conditions.
“We will be asking for an order to restrain the respondents for further harassing her.
“I refer the court to Paragraph 52 of the counter affidavit by the 4th respondent (EFCC).
“This indicates that she enjoys bail. We want the court to give order to protect her.
“We urge the court to consider that she is coming with her son that has a special need,” he said.
Iheanacho, however, disagreed with Ogunwumiju’s application.
He said the court had earlier given a judgment in a similar matter filed by Achimugu on Feb. 19, setting aside the application made by her for the enforcement of her right.
Justice Ekwo, however, directed Iheanacho to restrict himself to Achimugu’s motion ex-parte in which they were to show cause.
“We are not talking about the substantive matter now, what they are looking at is for you to show cause why the application she has prayed
“The learned count for the applicant has pointed you to your own averment in your counter affidavit which I consider to be your affidavit to show cause.
“I do not see any controversy if the applicant says I am coming to you on a date and then says, you have granted her bail, so you should not arrest her.
“Unless, you are denying this averment,” the judge said.
Responding, Iheanacho argued that Achimugu’s application was speculative because her right had never been breached.
The lawyer further argued that Achimugu violated the administrative bail conditions.
“We have invited the applicant and she refused to come. We wrote to her to come and she refused to come,” he added.
“The present situation is that the applicant is coming to you.
“If the applicant comes to you, she has surrendered,” the judge said.
“If the applicant comes, we will take it up from there. The application before this court is of no moment,” Iheanacho responded.
Ogunwumiju then applied that the court should adjourned until Wednesday so that if his client is allowed to continue on the bail, the suit would be withdrawn.
After the submissions of the lawyers, Justice Ekwo ordered Achimugu to appear at EFCC’s office on Tuesday.
“The 4th respondent requires the applicant to appear before them to assist in the course of investigation which is the constitutional obligation of the 4th respondent.
“And I also see the applicant showing willingness to appear in the course.
“Therefore I find no controversy considering the averment of the applicant and none should be created.
“Therefore, I am minded to make the following orders.
“The applicant shall appear before the 4th respondent on 29th April, 2025, as couched by the applicant in paragraph 61 of the affidavit in support of the motion ex-parte and Exhibit 3E.
“I further make an order that the 4th respondent upon the appearance of the applicant shall return with the applicant to this court on 30th April, 2025 for report of the appearance of the applicant.
“This is the order of this court,” the judge ruled.
NAN reports that in the EFCC’s affidavit to show cause, the commission averred that on Feb. 12, 2024 when Achimugu was in their office with her lawyer, Darlington Ozurumba, she wrote a statement.
The commission said in the statement, she explained some of the huge funds which passed through her corporate bank accounts.
It said that Achimugu admitted that the sum of N8, 710, 000, 000.00. (eight billion, seven hundred and ten million naira) was paid by her partners as investment fund into purchase and payment of signature bonus for the acquisition of oil bloc on Nov. 8, 2022.
It said further investigation however revealed that Achimugu, through her company, Ocean Gate Engineering Oli and Gas Limited, acquired two oil blocs, namely Shallow Water -PPL 3007 and Deep Offshore-PPL 302-DO for the total sum of $25, 300, 000 (twenty-five million, three hundred thousand dollars) through majorly cash payments made to the Bureau De Change (BDC) operators who in turn made payments to Federal Government via corporate accounts.
The commission alleged that the ultimate sources of the said sum of $25, 300, 000 used in the acquisition of the oil blocs were not linked to her lawful earning or income or any business partner.
“That the acquisition of the Oil Blocks was marred by corrupt practices as bribes were paid to the officials of the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission in the process.
“That none of the Oil Blocks assigned/allocated to Ocean Gate Engineering Oil and Gas Limited by the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Commission has commenced exploration/production from inception to date,” the EFCC said.
The anti-graft agency averred that following the decision of the court in suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/451/2024 which dismissed Achimugu’s suit, the commission, in continuation of its investigation, sent letters to some agencies of government, including FIRS, CBN, etc.
It said further investigation revealed that Achimugu operates a total of 136 bank accounts across ten different banks both in her personal and corporate names.

 

Flowerbudnews

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday, ordered a firm, Anchor Dataware Solutions Limited, and the Federal Government not to take any action that might affect a suit before it.

Justice Emeka Nwite gave the order following an application by Abiola Olawole, who appeared for the Federal Government, seeking to respond to the company’s counter affidavit to their preliminary objection.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Anchor Dataware Solutions Limited had sued the Federal Ministry of Interior, the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Federal Republic of Nigeria as 1st to 3rd defendants respectively.

The firm dragged the defendants to court over alleged wrongful termination of its contract for the management and maintenance of the e-Citibiz Platform, an automation system for processing expatriate quotas, business permits, citizenship administration and marriage registration.

In the suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/770/2025 and filed by Obinna Amagwula, the company is seeking several declarations and reliefs, including a pronouncement that the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) agreement signed with the ministry remains valid and binding.

It also wants the court to declare that the purported disengagement of its services via a letter dated April 15, was unlawful and in breach of the contract terms.
It seeks an injunction restraining the ministry from engaging another service provider, except in accordance with the procedures set out in Clause 13.1 of the contract, which requires a three-month notice period for termination.
The firm also seeks ₦20 million as cost of action.
Olawole, in a preliminary objection dated and filed on April 25 on behalf of the defendants, sought an order.
The lawyer prayed the court to declare that it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate over the plaintiff’s claim or grant any of the reliefs endorsed on the writ of summons.
Giving three-ground of arguments, Olawole submitted that the totality of the plaintiff’s claim was founded on a purported simple contract between the ministry and the company for “maintenance services.”
According to him, this honourable court lacks substantive, and procedural jurisdiction to adjudicate over an action founded on smpte contract or enforce any of the clauses contained in the agreement, in so far as, the claim relates to contract simpliciter.
He also argued that the company’s action was premature.
When the case was called on Monday, Olawole told the court that the plaintiff served on them a counter affidavit to their preliminary objection and he would need more time to respond.
He said they were still within the statutory time to respond.
The lawyer, therefore, sought an adjournment to enable the defence file its processes.
Amagwula, who appeared for the plaintiff, did not oppose the application.
He, however, urged the court to direct parties to maintain the status quo to prevent actions that might undermine the subject of the litigation.
Justice Nwite, therefore, held that justice demands that no party should take steps capable of affecting the subject matter of a suit already before the court.
“This is a court of record. If a matter is before the court, justice demands that without any pronouncement, parties must stay action on all issues relating to the case pending the hearing of the substantive suit,” the judge said.
In response, the defence counsel assured the court that the defendants had “submitted to the temple of justice” and would not take any step that could jeopardise the fair hearing of the case.
The judge subsequently adjourned the matter until June 3 for hearing.

 

 

By Flowerbudnews

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday, dismissed the objection raised by Rite Foods Ltd, the maker of Fearless Energy Drinks, against a motion filed by Mamuda Beverages Nig. Ltd, the manufacturer of Pop Power Energy Drinks, challenging the jurisdiction of the court.

Justice Emeka Nwite, in a ruling, agreed with counsel to Mamuda Beverages, Chief Offiong Offiong, SAN, that when the jurisdiction of a court is challenged, the application must be given priority.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Mamuda Beverages Nig Ltd, the sole defendant in a suit instituted by Rite Foods Ltd, had filed a preliminary objection to challenge the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the matter.
The development occurred after Mamuda Beverages got wind of the ex-parte motion filed by Rite Foods, the plaintiff, over alleged trademark infringment.

The plaintiff had filed the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/705/2025 to contest the production of Pop Power Energy Drinks by Mamuda Beverages over allegations that the drink has striking resemblance with one of its products.
In the ex-parte motion, the plaintiff had sought a preservative order of the court.

When the matter came up on Wednesday, Rite Foods Ltd’s counsel, Boonyamen Lawal, SAN, was taken back to see Offiong in court for Mamuda Beverages Nig. Ltd.

Offiong had told the court that though the matter was scheduled for the plaintiff’s ex-parte motion, a preliminary objection was filed on behalf of his client challenging the jurisdiction of the court.

The senior lawyer argued that irrespective of how a party becomes aware of a suit, when it borders on the jurisdiction of the court, the preliminary objection ought to be heard first.
According to him, the principle is well settled that when there is an application affecting the court, this has to be taken first.

Lawal, however, disagreed with Offiong’s submission.

The lawyer said he was only served with the preliminary objection which Offiong filed on Tuesday and would need time to respond, arguing that the motion was not ripe for hearing.

He said that though he did not object when Offiong announced appearance for the defendant, the business of the day was the hearing of their ex-parte motion.

After the two lawyers addressed the court, citing authorities to back their submissions, the judge fixed today for ruling.

Justice Nwite, while delivering the ruling on Friday, held that without jurisdiction, the court cannot validly make an order that would affect the parties.

Citing Supreme Court previous decision, he said it was safer to err on the side of caution by determining the jurisdiction of the court first than to proceed on a matter, having no jurisdiction.

“I wish to state that the issue of jurisdiction is fundamental. It is a live wire of any application,” he said.

The judge said no matter how well a proceeding was conducted, issues of jurisdiction cannot be toiled with by the court.

‘It is not what any court can toil with. It is the root of any matter,” he added.

The judge said that the argument of the counsel to the plaintiff that a preservative order could be heard while the issue of jurisdiction was still pending would be a wrong step.

“In view of this, I am of the view and I so hold that the motion on notice of the defendant should be taken first,” he said.

Justice Nwite subsequently adjourned the matter until May 28 for hearing of the preliminary objection filed by Mamuda Beverages Nig. Ltd.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) observes that in the preliminary objection filed by Mamuda Beverages Nig Ltd, it argued that Rite Foods Ltd had filed a similar suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/139/2025 before Justice Inyang Ekwo of a sister court.

The defendant said that the case which was instituted on Jan. 28 by the plaintiff via a motion ex parte, motion on notice as well as a writ of summons, had the same parties in the instant suit.

It averred that on Jan 31, Rite Foods’ ex-parte application was granted and the company executed same on Feb. 10.

Mamuda Beverages said the parties subsequently compromised and settled the said suit on terms of settlement dated Feb. 24, and that the said terms of settlement were adopted on March 4 and entered as consent judgment by Justice Ekwo.

It said one of the agreements was that Mamuda Beverages shall effect modifications to the product design of its Pop Power Energy Drinks before resuming production and sale, which it claimed it did.
According to the defendant, the present suit therefore constitutes an abuse of court process in that it seeks to relitigate matters resolved in suit no FHC/ABJ/CS/139/2025.
“The honourable court is functus officio in respect of the subject matter and lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaints of the plaintiff in this suit,” it argued.
Rite Foods Ltd had, In the suit before Justice Ekwo, had sought an order of perpetual injunction, restraining the defendant whether by itself, distributors or any other person(s) howsoever described from infringing its registered design.
It urged the court to stop Mamuda Beverages from engaging in the trade or business of manufacturing, supplying, distributing or selling in Nigeria, its “Pop Power Energy Drink..”

 

By Flowerbudnews

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday, ordered an interim forfeiture of three property linked to an Abia House of Assembly member, Mr Erondu Erondu, to the Federal Government over alleged money laundering to the tune of N28 billion.

Justice Emeka Nwite gave the order after the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)’s lawyer, C.O. Onu, moved a motion ex-parte to the effect.

The judge ordered that the notice be published on Daily Trust Newspaper and EFCC Website for interested person(s) to show cause within 14 days of the date of publication why the assets should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.

“I have listened to the submission of the learner counsel for the applicant (EFCC).
“I have also gone through the affidavit evidence with the exhibits thereto along with the written address.

“I am of the view and I so hold that the application is meritorious.

“Consequently, the application is granted as prayed,” Justice Nwite said, and adjourned the matter until May 26 for report of compliance.

The property include a four-bedroom bungalow at Plot 6/31, Ukaegbu Layout, Umuahia North LGA, Abia valued at N409 million; and a three-bedroom bungalow at same address as above and valued at N300 million.

The other property is a five-bedroom bungalow at Guzape in Abuja valued at N500 million.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Erondu currently serves as lawmaker representing Obingwa West Constituency of Abia State House of Assembly.
The anti-graft agency had, in the motion ex-parte dated April 10 and filed April 16, sought two orders.
The commission prayed the court for an order that the property set out in the schedule be seized in the interim to the Federal Government pending the conclusion of investigation and possible prosecution.
The commission said the allegations were in connection with a case of economic and financial crimes, alleged case of criminal conspiracy, illegal transfer of funds, abuse of office, diversion of public funds, and money laundering to the tune of over N28 billion.
In the affidavit attached to the motion and deposed to by an EFCC staff, Samson Oloje, the officer averred that the commission was in receipt of an alleged case of fraud
He said the case bordered on “criminal conspiracy, abuse of office, diversion of public funds and money . Laundering to the tune of over N28 billion initiated through an intelligence report source to the applicant’s organisation.”
“That the assets and properties in the schedule of this application are being investigated for being linked to economic and financial crimes, proceeds of crimes, abuse of office, diversion of public funds, illegal transfer of funds, criminal conspiracy, impersonation and money laundering via an open source intelligence report.
“That herein attached are the statements of the person involved in the dealings and transactions connected to this case hereby attached as Exhibit EFCC-1.”
Oloje said it would be in the interest of justice for the application to be granted “in order to preserve the res pending the conclusion of investigation for whosoever concerned to show cause why the aforementioned assets and properties should not be forfeited to the Federal Government.”

 

Flowerbudnews

Mr Christopher Maikalangu, the Chairman of the Abuja Municipal Area Council (AMAC), was, on Thursday, absent at the Dutse Magistrates’ Court in Abuja for his arraignment.

Maikalangu, who was scheduled to take his plea before Chief Magistrates Abdullahi Ilela of Court I over alleged certificate forgery, was said to be indisposed.

The direct criminal complaint was instituted by Awalu Mohammed, an All Progressives Congress (APC) member and an AMAC resident.
In the case number: CR/DUT/324/25 dated March 24, the AMAC chairman is the sole accused person.

When the case was called on Thursday, Job Israel, who appeared for the complainant, said the matter was listed for mention and that he was ready to proceed.

“The matter comes for mention today. We have a direct criminal complaint filed on 24th day of March, 2025,” he said.

However, Maikalangu’s lawyer, Charles Okoye, apologised to the court that his client was not in court.

He said it was due to health grounds.
Okoye said a letter dated April 23 was written to the court and a subsequent letter dated April 24 to communicate to the honourable court his state of health and why the defendant would not be in court was also sent along.

“The letter of 24th day of April, 2025, is attached to the defendant’s patient appointment slip with the National Hospital sir,” he said.
The lawyer said in their earlier letter, they sought an adjournment to May 28.
“We are seeking the indulgence of your lordship for an adjournment to 28th day of May 2025,” he said.
Okoye said this would afford his client the opportunity to recuperate ahead of the arraignment.
Israel expressed his sadness over the development.
He said despite the fact that the defence had written letters to the court before the sitting, they were yet to be served with the copies.
The lawyer also disagreed that the document attached to the letter was not a medical report as claimed by Okoye.
He argued that April 23 which was on the patient appointment slip was sufficient enough for Maikalangu to have procured his medical report with which to actually persuade the court that he was truly illed.
“With all due respect, this slip is not a medical report and cannot take the place of medical report.
“We urge the court not to believe that the defendant is sick,” he said, adding that the court is a court of justice.
Israel, however, did not oppose the application for adjournment by Okoye.
“We will be conceding on the strength of my learner senior friend’s statement, speaking from the bar, but not on the document before the court.
“We will be conceding to two weeks adjournment at their instance and in the interest of justice,” he said.
Responding, Okoye said it was misleading for Israel to submit that the document provided was not an evidence of medical report.
“It is a strike law that the document speaks for itself. The document reads, National Hospital Abuja Medical Records by patient appointment sick,” he said
The lawyer said the document equally stated Maikalangu’s next appointment date.
According to him, it is therefore surprise to say that this document is not an evidence of medical report.
The magistrate adjourned the matter until May 23 for arraignment or for mention.
The complainant had alleged that Maikalangu , on or about Jan. 8, 2013, at the FCT Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) Office, Area 10, Garki District, Abuja, submitted a forged first school leaving certificate from Festival Road Primary School {1983-1989} to the commission.
He alleged that the forged certificate was among other submitted documents included in his “INEC FORM C.F. 001, for councillorship position, knowing it to be forged and with intent that it may in anyway be used or acted upon as genuine.”
Mohammed also alleged that the AMAC chairman, on or about May 8, 2021, submitted a forged first school leaving certificate from LEA Model Science Primary School {1984-1989} at the INEC for election purpose.
He said the document was submitted alongside the court affidavit for statutory declaration of age and the court affidavit for correction of name on voter’s card, “knowing them to be forged and with intent that they may in anyway be used or acted upon as genuine.”
He accused the chairman of committing the offence of forgery contrary to Sections 362(a), 363 and 264 of a the Penal Code Act, Cap 532, Laws of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
In the verifying affidavit in support of the application, Mohammed said he was duty bound to expose the commission of crime(s) by any person, including the defendant, public officials, agencies or institutions howsoever described, whose acts could embarrass and dent the prestige and good name of Nigeria.
“Consequently, I have filed this direct criminal complaint against the defendant.
“I hereby verify the facts contained in this direct criminal complaint as true and correct to the best of my knowledge,” he said.
According to him, the chairman, in 2013 and 2021 in line with the requirement of the Electoral Act, submitted his sworn FORM EC9 to INEC (AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PERSONAL PARTICULARS – Particulars of persons seeking election to the Councillorship (2013) Chairmanship (2021) position, Abuja Municipal Area Council) to FCT Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).
Mohammed said upon his application, Maikalangu’s Certified True Copy (CTC) of Form EC9, containing his affidavit in support of personal particulars, was made available to him.
He said the CTCs of the necessary documents, including INEC Forms 001 for Maikalangu ‘s councillorship election {2013} and chairmanship poll {2021} and a report of Investigation by the police to the Tribunal Secretary, FCT Area Council Election Tribunal were equally handed to him.
He said the tribunal secretary issued to him CTCs of the chairman’s form for nomination of councillorship in 2013 as well as chairmanship in 2021, INEC Forms 001, and other documents in the tribunal’s custody relating to the fact in issue.

“Based on the response from the FCT High Court, I verily believe that the affidavit for correction of name, and the affidavit for declaration of age swear in by the defender was forge by the defendant.
“Based on the above differences between the two certificates, I verily believe that the defendant submitted a forged First School Leaving Certificate to INEC on or about sometimes in 2013 and 2021,” he alleged.

 

By Flowerbudnews

The manufacturer of Pop Power Energy Drinks, Mamuda Beverages Nig Ltd, has asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss a suit filed by Rite Foods Ltd, the maker of Fearless Energy Drinks, over alleged trade mark infringment.

The company, through his lawyer, Chief O.E.B. Offiong, SAN, prayed Justice Emeka Nwite to dismiss the suit for being an abuse of court process.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Rite Foods Limited, the plaintiff in the case, is the producer of Nigerian Bigi Drinks, Fearless Energy Drinks, Sosa Fruit Drinks and Rite and Bigi Sausage Rolls.

The plaintiff had filed the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/705/2025 to contest the production of Pop Power Energy Drinks over allegations that the drink has striking resemblance with one of its products.

In the ex-parte motion, the company therefore sought a preservative order pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.

Although the matter was fixed for hearing of the motion ex-parte before Justice Nwite, Mamuda Beverages Nig Ltd, the sole defendant, however got wind of the suit and the hearing date.

An “ex parte motion” is a legal request made to a court by one party without notifying the other party involved in the case and the judge only considers the one party’s arguments and evidence, without hearing the opposing side’s perspective.

The motion is typically used in emergency situations or when there’s a compelling reason to proceed without notifying the other party.
Meanwhile, when the matter was called, Boonyamen Lawal, SAN, represented Rite Foods Limited while Offiong announced appearance for Mamuda Beverages Nig Ltd in the suit.

Offiong told the court that though the matter was scheduled for the plaintiff’s ex-parte motion, a preliminary objection had been filed on behalf of his client challenging the jurisdiction of the court.

According to him, the principle is well settled that when there is an application affecting the court, this has to be settled first.
Lawal, however, disagreed with Offiong’s submission.
The lawyer said he was only served with the preliminary objection dated and filed April 22, the previous day and he had the right to respond.
“They know what they are doing. They cannot be heard. We have a motion ex-parte to be heard and it is ripe.
“Their motion is saying that we should not be heard and I was only served yesterday.
“Our motion ex-parte is for the business of the day. It was dated and filed on 14th of April, 2025. Subject to your lordship’s convenience, we are ready to proceed.
“Even on the course list, it is listed as motion ex-parte. Even though they (Mamuda Beverages lawyer) announced appearance and I did not say anything, our motion is ripe and we are ready to proceed,” he insisted.
Responding, Offiong argued that no matter how a party becomes aware of a suit, when it borders on the jurisdiction of the court, the objection ought to be heard first.
But Justice Nwite explained that being a vacation judge, priority is given to a motion ex-parte once it is filed due to the urgency of the matter.
Besides, the judge said Lawal informed the court that he was only served with the preliminary objection the previous day and that his (Lawal’s) motion was ripe for hearing.
Offiong insisted that once an application that bordered on the jurisdiction was filed, the court cannot proceed on the business of the day.
The lawyer prayed the court to adjourn the hearing so that Lawal could respond appropriately to their objection.
He said he had seen a copy of the directive of the chief judge concerning vacation cases.
He argued that the suit filed by Rite Foods Ltd did not fall in the category of matters to be regarded as urgent cases.
“This is not a fundamental right issue as said by the CJ. The CJ enumerated matters that should be heard,” Offiong said.
Lawal, who urged the court to discountenance Offiong’s argument, said their suit was in the category of matters of extreme urgency.
“I will point out to the court the daily loss by the plaintiff as a result of the action of the defendant,” he said.
The lawyer said his client was bleeding and that if not heard, there might be nothing to adjudicate on by the court.
Justice Nwite assured that the court would do justice to the matter.
The judge said though he wondered how the defendant got to know about the motion ex-parte, he cannot just gloss over the issue of jurisdiction raised by it
The judge then ordered the parties to address the court.
While addressing the court, Offiong said the motion on notice was dated and filed on April 22.
“It is an application which challenges the jurisdiction of the court to hear the processes filed by the plaintiff.
“It is asking you lordship to dismiss the writ of summons, the motion on notice and the motion ex-parte on the grounds that it is an abuse of court process,” he said.
The senior lawyer cited three previous cases, including the 2014 case involving Seplat Petroleum Development against Britalia -U Nig Ltd to back his argument.
According to him, the court held that once an issue of jurisdiction is raised, it has to be decided first.
He clarified that he did not respond to the plaintiff’s motion ex-parte having not been served, but only praying the court to decide on which motions to be taken first.
Responding, Lawal argued that he had the right to respond to the objection which was just served on him.
He further argued that in the three authorities cited by Offiong, none explicitly said that if one wants to challenge an ex-parte motion, one must come with an application challenging the jurisdiction of the court.
He said his motion was ripe for hearing.
According to him, the business of the court is our motion seeking a preservative order.
He said without going to the merit, the application filed by Offiong was an attempt to scuttle the hearing, urging the court not to fall for such gimmicks.
Citing Order 26, Rule 7 of the Federal High Court, Lawal argued that the rules stipulated that notwithstanding the presence of the other party, such party might not be heard at the hearing of the motion ex-parte.
Also Citing Order 29, Rule 2 of the court, the lawyer argued that where a defendant is challenging the jurisdiction of the court, such defendant must first filed a memorandum of conditional appearance, which he said the defendant failed to do.
He described the defendant’s action as “a distraction from the business of the day.”
The lawyer, who said that Seplat case cited by Offiong was irrelevant in the instant suit, cited the 1995 case of 7UP Bottling Company and Abiola to back his argument.
“My conclusion is that this application is an attempt to stall the business of the day and we urge your lordship to refuse their plan,” Lawal said.
Justice Nwite adjourned the matter until April 25 for ruling.
NAN observes that in the preliminary objection filed by Mamuda Beverages Nig Ltd, it argued that Rite Foods Ltd had filed a similar suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/139/2025 before Justice Inyang Ekwo.
The defendant said that the case which was instituted on Jan. 28 by the plaintiff via a motion ex parte, motion on notice as well as a writ of summons, had the same parties in the instant suit.
It averred that on Jan 31, Rite Foods’ ex-parte application was granted and the company executed same on Feb. 10.
Mamuda Beverages said the parties subsequently compromised and settled the said suit on terms of settlement dated Feb. 24, and that the said terms of settlement were adopted on March 4 and entered as consent judgment by Justice Ekwo.
It said one of the agreements was that Mamuda Beverages shall effect modifications to the product design of its Pop Power Energy Drinks before resuming production and sale, which it claimed it did.
According to the defendant, the present suit therefore constitutes an abuse of court process in that it seeks to relitigate matters resolved in suit no FHC/ABJ/CS/139/2025.
“The honourable court is functus officio in respect of the subject matter and lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaints of the plaintiff in this suit,” it argued.
Rite Foods Ltd had, In the suit before Justice Ekwo, had sought an order of perpetual injunction, restraining the defendant whether by itself, distributors or any other person(s) howsoever described from infringing its registered design.
It urged the court to stop Mamuda Beverages from engaging in the trade or business of manufacturing, supplying, distributing or selling in Nigeria, its “Pop Power Energy Drink products or any other products, not emanating or manufactured by the plaintiff, but closely resembling, similar to and/ or identical in design to the plaintiff’s registered bottle design no. NG/DS/NT/2020/1099 and capable of being offered for sale to the public as the plaintiff’s energy drink products.”