Hope of Mr. Fidelis Eugeke, a former manager of with a bank in Nigeria of unfreezing his accounts has been dashed, as the application for discharging a Post No Debit order (PND) placed on his accounts, has been dismissed by a Lagos Federal High Court, for being unmeritorious.
The court presided by Justice Kehinde Ogundare, also awarded a N100 000 00, cost against the embattled former manager, for filing the application.
Egueke is currently being prosecuted by the Office of the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) through Force Criminal Investigation Department ForceCID Annex Alagbon-Ikoyi, on alleged forgery, obtaining by false pretence and fraud of N179, 498 million.
However, the police through Barrister Barrister Morufu Animashaun of the legal department, in a bid to forestall dissipation of the fund which he allegedly warehoused in his various accounts, sometimes in 2022, obtained a court order placing PND/Lien on his accounts in Guaranty Trust Bank (GTB) and Zenith Bank Plc.
Discomfort with the restrictions order, Egueke filed several applications to have the orders discharged, staring that it is an abuse of judicial process and breach of his constitutional right to fair hearing.
Egueke had told the court that his application is pursuant to Section 6 (1), (2), (4) & (6) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and under the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
He thereafter asked for the followings: “an order discharging the said Orders made on 23rd day of March, 2022 for having been made without jurisdiction.”
He told the court that his application is premised on 18 grounds, also supported by an affidavit deposed to by on Friday Eze, with a written address and seven exhibits.
But the office of the IGP through its lawyer, Barrister Animashaun vehemently opposed the applications, for being frivolous and unmeritorious,
The police support it’s opposition to the application field a 16 paragraphed counter-affidavit deposed to by Inspector Sunday Utsu, a Police Officer In the Office of the IGP.
The police counter-affidavit was attached with a written address and several documentary exhibits.
In the written address, the police raised two issues which were: “Whether applying for order of temporary preservation of moneys in accounts subject of criminal prosecution when a criminal charge is pending against same suspect amounts to an abuse of court process?
“Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, it is just and equitable to grant the relief of interlocutory injunction?”
Delivering ruling on the application, Justice Ogundare after reading through all the arguments canvassed by the parties held that: “…….. it is my view upon perusal of the processes in this application that the applicant has not proved to the court that the Order Ex-parte was fraudulently obtained nor visited with fundamental vices, to wit: Concealment of Material Facts or deceit.
“On the issue of Concealment of Material Facts or deceit, the depositions and counter depositions of the applicant and the respondent eloquently capture the fact that the applicant/1st respondent did not obtained the Order by deceit or concealment of any material facts from court.
“Moreover, the contention that the suit was an abuse of court process is without basis because the law Permits law enforcement agencies to come by way of Ex-parte application to obtain preservative orders pending the determination of a criminal investigation and trial. See Section 16 of the Advanced Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006.
“It is safe to agree that the applicant/1st respondent did not come with any material facts as to make the order of 23rd March, 2022 liable to be set aside. It is therefore axiomatic to conclude that flowing from the foregoing, the Court was not misled into granting the ex-parte Order in favour of the applicant/1st respondent as to constitute a fundamental vice to the respondent/applicant’s case.
“I am therefore in agreement with the arguments/submissions of Counsel to the applicant/1st respondent that the respondent/ applicant has not placed enough material facts before the Court in which the Court can exercise its discretion to set aside the Ex-parte Order made on 23 March, 2022.
“In all the circumstances therefore, the issue for determination is resolved against the respondent/applicant (IGP)
“The Motion on Notice dated 9th December, 2022 and filed on the same day is unmeritorious and same fails in its entirety and it is hereby dismissed.
“Cost of N100,000.00 is awarded in favour of the applicant/1st respondent against the Respondent/Applicant.”
