By Ayomide Otitoju
The Federal High Court in Abuja has struck out a suit filed by businessman Abubakar Ismaila Isa Funtua, who alleged that his 43 million shares were unlawfully transferred to Emerging Markets Telecommunication Services Limited (EMTS), operators of 9mobile.
Delivering judgment in the case marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1971/2024, Justice Mohammed Umar ruled that Isa lacked the locus standi — the legal right or capacity — to institute the action against the nine defendants.
The defendants included Seltrix Limited, Hayatu Hassan Hadejia, Teleology Nigeria Limited, Mohammed Edewor, EMTS, the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), LH Telecommunication Limited, and General Theophilus Yakubu Danjuma.
Isa, through his counsel, Mr. Femi Atteh, SAN, had filed the suit on December 27, 2024, seeking 11 reliefs. He claimed to be the beneficial owner of the disputed shares, allegedly held in trust for him by Seltrix Ltd in Teleology Nigeria Ltd.
However, the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th, and 9th defendants — represented respectively by Mr. 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 on February 5, 2025, urging the court to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and as an abuse of court process.
After considering arguments from all parties, Justice Umar upheld the objection, stating that Isa failed to demonstrate 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 ordinary shares held in trust for the Plaintiff by the 1st Defendant mentioned,” the judge said.
He noted that the second defendant denied any business relationship with the plaintiff — a claim Isa did not controvert — adding that the documents tendered did not establish a trust relationship sufficient to grant him standing in the matter.
“The said exhibits were tendered by the Plaintiff, but nowhere did they link the Plaintiff to his claims to enable him to institute an action on the facts alleged therein,” Justice Umar held.
The court further ruled that the plaintiff failed to substantiate his claims or respond to the defendants’ counter-affidavit, which was therefore deemed admitted.
“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 judge stated.
Justice Umar concluded that since Isa lacked the legal capacity to file the case, there was no need to rule on other objections, including arguments that the suit was statute-barred, incompetent, and amounted to interference with EMTS operations.
“I therefore make an order striking out this action for lack of locus standi of the Plaintiff. This is the order of the court,” Justice Umar declared.
