The Federal High Court in Abuja has struck out a suit filed by a businessman, Abubakar Ismaila Isa Funtua, regarding the alleged non-consensual transfer of his 43 million shares to Emerging Markets Telecommunication Services Limited (EMTS), operators of 9mobile.
The court, presided over by Justice Mohammed Umar, arrived at the verdict while delivering judgment on the suit designated FHC/ABJ/CS/1971/2024.
In handing down his judgment on the 9mobile share ownership, Justice Umar held that Isa, the lone plaintiff, lacked the locus standi, the legal capacity or right, to institute the action against the nine defendants.
Consequently, the court ordered the suit to be struck out. Isa had initiated the suit on December 27, 2024, through his counsel, Femi Atteh, SAN, seeking 11 reliefs.
The central claim was a declaration that he was the beneficial owner of the disputed shares, which he alleged were held in trust for him by Seltrix Limited in Teleology Nigeria Limited.
The nine defendants in the case included Seltrix Limited, Hayatu Hassan Hadejia, Teleology Nigeria Limited, Mohammed Edewor, EMTS (9mobile), the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), LH Telecommunication Limited, and General Theophilus Yakubu Danjuma.
The 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th, and 9th defendants, represented by a team of Senior Advocates led by Michael Aondakaa, SAN, C.I. Okpoko, SAN, and R.O. Atabo, SAN, filed a joint preliminary objection on February 5, 2025.
They urged the court to dismiss the case, arguing that it lacked jurisdiction, constituted an abuse of court process, and that the plaintiff was merely a meddlesome interloper.
In upholding the objection, Justice Umar reviewed the evidence tendered by the plaintiff, finding a critical disconnect between the claims and the exhibits provided.
‘I carefully perused the said exhibit to see if the allegation of the Plaintiff is substantiated, I did not find any.
‘Nowhere was there any figure of the 43,000,000 million ordinary shares held in trust for the Plaintiff by the 1st Defendant mentioned,’ Justice Umar held.
The court further noted that the second defendant (Hayatu Hassan Hadejia) denied any business dealings with the plaintiff, a fact which Isa failed to controvert.
The judge concluded that the exhibits cannot, by any imagination, constitute a trust to confer locus standi on the plaintiff.
Justice Umar ruled that the plaintiff failed to establish the foundational facts of his claim or to logically link them to the exhibits he presented to the court.
Furthermore, the court noted that the defendants had adequately countered the said exhibits,’ and the plaintiff’s failure to respond to the counter-affidavit was deemed an admission.
In his final analysis, the judge stated that once a plaintiff is determined to lack legal capacity, ‘it does not matter what other issues have been raised for determination in the suit.’