- Safiu Kehinde
The Federal High Court in Abuja has struck out a suit filed by a Nigerian businessman, Abubakar Funtua, over alleged transfer of his 43 million shares without his consent to Emerging Markets Telecommunication Services Limited (EMTS), operators of Nigerian telecommunication company, 9mobile.
Funtua had in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1971/2024 dragged EMTS before the court over the transfer of his shares to the company by Seltrix Limited who was also marked as defendant in the case.
Other defendants in the case include Hayatu Hassan Hadejia, Teleology Nigeria Limited, Mohammed Edewor, the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), LH Telecommunication Limited, and General Theophilus Yakubu Danjuma.
Through his counsel Femi Atteh (SAN), Funtua had commenced the suit on December 27, 2024.
As contained in a statement made available to NPO Reports on Monday, the businessman sought 11 reliefs which included a declaration that he was the beneficial owner of the disputed shares allegedly held in trust for him by Seltrix Ltd and Teleology Nigeria Ltd.
However, the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th, and 9th defendants, represented by Michael Aondakaa (SAN) C.I. Okpoko (SAN) R.O. Atabo (SAN), A.T. Kohol, Esq., and C.C. Ogbonna, Esq., filed a joint preliminary objection.
In the objection dated February 5, 2025, the counsel had urged the court to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction and as an abuse of court process.
Delivering judgment on Wednesday 24th of September 2025, Justice Mohammed Umar held that Isa, the lone plaintiff, lacked the locus standi (legal capacity) to institute the action against the nine defendants.
Justice Umar, after reviewing the arguments of all parties, upheld the objection of the defendants’ counsels.
He ruled that Isa failed to show any legal interest in the subject matter.
“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.
“In fact, the 2nd Defendant denied any business dealings with the Plaintiff and these facts were not controverted by the Plaintiff.
“The said exhibits cannot by any imagination constitute a trust to confer locus standi on the Plaintiff.
“The said exhibits were tendered by the Plaintiff, but nowhere did it link the Plaintiff to his claims to enable him to institute an action on the facts alleged therein.” The judge held.
Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the facts he asserted and to link his claims to the exhibits he himself tendered by virtue of averment in this suit.
“I find that the Objectors have adequately countered the said exhibits in their reply on points of law in tandem with the law that failure to respond to a counter affidavit is deemed to be an admission,” Justice Umar held.
In the final analysis, the judge added: “I resolve the issue of locus standi against the Plaintiff, and the law is that where a Plaintiff has been adjudged to lack locus standi, it does not matter what other issues have been raised for determination in the suit.”
The court noted that since the Plaintiff lacked the capacity to institute the action, there was no need to make a pronouncement on grounds two to nine (2-9) of the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 9th Defendants’ Notice of Preliminary Objections.
The objections included claims that the suit was statute-barred, incompetent, and that Isa was a “meddlesome interloper” seeking to frustrate the operations of EMTS.
“I therefore make an Order striking out this action for lack of locus standi of the Plaintiff. This is the Order of this Court,” the judge added.