Yanaty Petrochemical Limited V. Economic And Financial Crimes Commission (2017)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA, J.S.C.

This is an appeal by the respondent before the lower Court against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division delivered on 7th December, 2015, coram: Hon. Justice Tinuade Akomolafe-wilson; Hon. Justice Tani Yusuf Hassan; and Hon. Justice Joseph Eyo Ekanem, JJCA in which the Court below allowed the appeal of the respondent and set aside the judgment of the trial Court (Federal High Court, Abuja Division) delivered on 19th December, 2013.

The appellant as the plaintiff at the trial Federal High Court had commenced a proceedings against the respondent by way of an Originating Summons in which it had sought the determination of the following questions:

“1. Whether in view of the judgment delivered by Hon. Justice A. R. Mohammed on the 22nd day of May, 2013 in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/617/2012 -YANATY PETRO CHEMICAL LIMITED VS. PETROLEUM PRODUCT PRICING REGULATORY AGENCY & ANOR and in particular Relief 2 therein, investigation into any allegation of fraud and money laundering with respect to the payment of fuel subsidy and which investigation was by relevant agencies

1

including the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission or any other agency has been concluded.

2. Whether in view of the judgment delivered by Hon. Justice A. R. Mohammed on the 22nd day of May, 2013 in Suit No.FHC/ABJ/CS/617/2012, YANATY PETROCHEMICAL LIMITED VS PETROLEUM PRODUCT PRICING REGULATORY AGENCY & ANOR the respondent or any other agency can further investigate or reopen any investigation into fraud or money laundering arising from the payment of subsidy to the plaintiff by the PPPRA.
3. Whether the Honourable Court by virtue of the judgment delivered on the 22nd day of May, 2012 in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/617/2012 YANATY PETROCHEMICAL LIMITED VS PETROLEUM PRODUCT PRICING REGULATORY AGENCY & ANOR where it held that the plaintiff, not being indicted in previous investigation by various security agencies, panels and investigating bodies set up to investigate the issue of fraud or money laundering arising out of the payment of fuel subsidies granted to the plaintiff, the defendant is restrained from conducting any new or further investigation into any allegation of fraud and money laundering against the plaintiff.

If the answers to

2

the above questions raised are in the affirmative, the appellant then sought the following RELIEFS against the respondent.

1. A declaration that as far as the plaintiff is concerned, investigation on the payment of fuel subsidies by the respondent or indeed any other agency has been concluded.
2. An order of injunction restraining the Defendant whether by themselves, their servants, agents, privies or representatives or any other agency from carrying out any act capable of restricting the movement of the plaintiff or any of its staff with regards to the above named Suit on the basis of fraud and money laundering.
3. An order of injunction restraining the defendant whether by themselves, their servants, agents, privies or representatives or any other agency from violating the Plaintiff’s fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom of movement as guaranteed under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
4. And for such other or further Orders as this Honourable Court shall deem necessary to make in the circumstance.”

In support of the said Originating summons was an affidavit of 29 paragraphs

3

deposed to by one Elias Adebunmi Adeojo, a Director of the Appellant. Annexed to the said affidavit were six (6) Exhibits marked as YAN1 to YAN6 respectively. A written address was also filed as required by the rules.

In response to the Originating Summons, the respondent filed a counter affidavit of 13 paragraphs deposed to by one Chudi Nweke to which couple of Exhibits were annexed and marked as Exhibits 1-11 respectively and a written address in support.

The appellant later filed a reply on points of law, in response to the respondent’s processes served on the appellant. A further and better affidavit of 30 paragraphs was also filed to which couple of Exhibits were attached and marked Exhibits PET7-23 respectively.