Felimon Enterprises Nigeria Limited V. The Chairman, Economic Financial Crimes Commission & Anor (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the decision of Honourable Justice A. Ajakaiye delivered on the 6th day of July, 2010, in which he refused to discharge, or set aside, the motion ex-parte for interim attachment of the Appellant’s properties and assets (pages 324-325 of the Record of Appeal).

SYNOPSIS OF THE FACTS

The Appellant was Applicant at the lower Court. Sometime in October 2009, the 2nd Respondent was arraigned on a 26 counts charge. He was granted bail. Thereafter the charge was substituted for an amended charge of 44 counts. The 2nd Respondent was to continue on the former bail terms.

The 1st Respondent filed an application ex-parte, seeking inter alia, to attach and freeze some accounts affiliated to the 2nd Respondent, one of which belonged to the Applicant. The lower Court granted the application on the 1st of March, 2010.

The Appellant filed a motion dated 17th of March, 2010 on the 19th of March, 2010, praying the Court for an order discharging or setting aside the ex-parte order of interim attachment on the ground of misrepresentation and suppression of facts. The learned trial judge refused the application as prayed on the 6th of July, 2010, thereby dismissing the application as being premature.

These facts is what has informed this appeal.

The Appellant, dissatisfied with the decision of the Court, has appealed it, vide Notice of Appeal filed on the 20th of July, 2010, with three Grounds of Appeal of pages 326-328 of the Record of Appeal). Same is hereby reproduced.

GROUND NO. 1

“The learned trial Judge erred in law and therefore caused a miscarriage of justice when he ignored all the legal authorities cited by the Appellant on the effect of suppression and misrepresentation of material facts in an Ex-parte application and went ahead to dismiss the Appellant’s application to discharge the Ex-parte Order of Interim Attachment of its assets and properties on the ground that the application is premature”.

GROUND NO.2

“The learned trial judge erred in law and therefore caused a miscarriage of justice when he held that on the strength of the substantive charge against the 2nd Respondent and the proof of evidence, the name of the Appellant featured prominently and therefore it would be premature to discharge the Ex-parte Order of Interim Attachment”.

GROUND NO. 3

“The learned trial Judge erred in law and therefore caused a miscarriage of justice when he held that the name of the Appellant featured prominently in the substantive charge against the 2nd Respondent, thereby shifting the burden of proof to the Appellant”.