Alleged Fraudulent Conversion: Court throws out firms’ suit against EFCC

J ustice Nicholas Oweibo of a Federal High Court in La- gos has thrown out a suit filed by Woobs Resources Limited, Sandworth Properties Limited and one, Whoba Ug- wunna Ogo (A Director of Woobs Resources Ltd.) against the Eco- nomic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and Mr. James Uchechukwu Onyemenam (the Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer of Woobs Re- sources Ltd.).

Delivering judgement in the suit, Justice Oweibo held that Onyeme- nam, the second respondent, is still a shareholder and Director of Woobs Resources Limited. Justice Oweibo held that it has been shown that the 2nd respon- dent, in the performance of his civic and constitutional duty, re- ported the suspicious activities of the 3rd Applicant (Ogo) to the anti- graft agency. According to the judge, “So, as it is, the 2nd respondent is still a shareholder and Director of the 1st Applicant (Woobs Resources Limited) and so was entitled as he did to lodge the complaint on behalf of the 1st Applicant.

The court further held that Section 24(e) of the Constitution places a duty on all citizens to assist appropriate and lawful agencies in the mainte- nance of law and order. It would be recalled that the applicants; Woobs Resources Limited, Sandworth Properties Limited, and Mr James Uchechukwu Onyeme- nam, had in their suit designated FHC/L/CS/1351/22, dated July 15, 2022, prayed the court to restrain the EFCC from investigating the manage- ment of the companies or meddling with their activities. In the originating summons filed by their lawyer, Victor Ukutt, the applicants argued that the anti-graft agency does not have the power to meddle with the civil suit between the them and the 2nd respondent (Onyemenam).

They therefore prayed the court to declare that it is unlawful for the EFCC to interfere or investigate the management and private busiThe 3rd applicant (Ogo) specifically argued that the second respondent (Onyemenam) is not a shareholder and has no right to petition the EFCC. Ogo added that the petition was based on a civil dispute between the 1st and 3rd applicants on one part and the 2nd respondent on the other part, which is still pending at the Court of Appeal.

The 3rd applicant had alleged that the EFCC sealed off his property and blocked his account, noting that he could not access his account to take care of his ill health abroad, as well as pay his staff. However, the anti-graft agency and 2nd respondent also filed their response to the suit. The Commission argued that it received a petition dated April 6, 2021, against the 3rd applicant, signed by the 2nd Respondent (Onyemenam) on behalf of the 1st Applicant (Woobs Re- sources Limited), alleging fraudulent conversion and diversion of funds of the 1st applicant (Woobs Resources Limited). EFCC stated that part of its standard operating procedure is that it is- sued letters of investigation activities to various organizations, financial institutions and individuals, including the 3rd applicant (Ogo).

The anti-graft agency further argued that the 3rd applicant (Ogo) failed to honour its invitation but remained at large, adding that its investigation indicated that the applicants had concluded arrangements to dissipate and sell-off some of the property which are proceeds of crime. The EFCC alleged that the applicants’ suit was filed to prevent the conclusion of investigations.