THE Court of Appeal sitting in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, has vacated the interim order freezing the bank accounts of businesswoman and founder of Oceangate Engineering Oil & Gas Ltd, Aisha Achimugu, as well as those of corporate entities linked to her, while partly allowing an appeal filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
News Point Nigeria reports that, in a unanimous judgment delivered on Wednesday, a three-member panel of the appellate court held that allowing an ex parte freezing order to remain in force for more than 15 months amounted to an abuse of court process and a subversion of the rule of law.
The appellate panel, comprising Justices Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo, Ishaq Mohammed Sani and Eleojo Enenche, dismissed the ex parte interim freezing order granted by the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt on April 10, 2025.
The appeal arose from the decision of the Federal High Court delivered on August 27, 2025, in the matter involving Achimugu.
On April 10, 2025, Justice Turaki Adamu of the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt, had granted an ex parte application filed by the EFCC, temporarily freezing 124 bank accounts linked to Achimugu and directing the affected banks to halt all outward transactions.
Court documents obtained by TheCable showed that Achimugu subsequently filed a motion on notice on May 25, 2025, seeking to set aside the freezing order on the grounds that it constituted an abuse of court process.
She told the court that despite the subsisting freezing order, the EFCC, through a letter dated April 24, 2025, marked Exhibit FF2, directed SunTrust Bank to transfer funds from one of the frozen accounts into a Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)/EFCC recovery account.
In his ruling on August 27, 2025, Justice Adamu held that the transfer of ₦1.8 billion from account number 0001313173 domiciled in SunTrust Bank into the CBN recovery account was unlawful and consequently ordered the immediate reversal of the funds.
The affected account was linked to one of the companies allegedly associated with Achimugu.
Dissatisfied with that ruling, the EFCC approached the Court of Appeal, challenging the decision on three principal grounds.
The anti-graft agency argued that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to conduct proceedings and deliver its ruling during the court’s annual long vacation, that it denied the EFCC fair hearing by granting an unsolicited relief on its own motion, and that it failed to properly evaluate affidavit evidence relating to the identity of the accounts and their credit balances.
Responding to the appeal, counsel to Achimugu maintained that the lower court acted within its powers in directing the reversal of what he described as illegally transferred funds.
He argued that the order was a valid consequential order intended to preserve the integrity of the subsisting freezing order.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Sirajo held that delivering a reserved judgment during the court’s annual vacation does not amount to conducting general legal business and therefore does not occasion a miscarriage of justice.
The appellate court consequently held that the Federal High Court was right to deliver its ruling on August 27, 2025, and rejected the EFCC’s contention that it was denied fair hearing.
The court noted that both parties had filed additional affidavits before the lower court on the issue of the transfer of funds.
According to the appellate court, “a reasonable person looking at the exchange of these detailed further affidavits would conclude that both parties were fully heard on the issue of transfer of funds.”
On whether the lower court granted reliefs outside those sought by Achimugu, the appellate court ruled that a court which grants a freezing order possesses the power to make consequential orders necessary to preserve its earlier decision.
The court held that, in principle, the Federal High Court had the authority to order the reversal of funds moved from a frozen account during the subsistence of the freezing order.
“An order compelling the reversal of funds moved out of a frozen account during the pendency of the freezing order, and without leave, is a consequential order incidental to the preservation of the res,” Justice Sirajo ruled.
However, on the third issue, the appellate court found that the evidence before the trial court did not establish that the ₦1.8 billion transferred to the CBN/EFCC recovery account originated from any of the accounts covered by the freezing order issued on April 10, 2025.
The court held that the accounts expressly frozen by the Federal High Court were current accounts, including Drive.FGC.Net’s current account No. 0001313173 with a balance of ₦50,518,009.57 and Felak Concepts Ltd’s current account No. 0001252281 with a balance of ₦16,220,608.37.
The appellate court ruled that those balances remained intact.
It further observed that the larger sums were held in different accounts, including a fixed deposit account containing ₦1.8 billion and an internal ledger reflecting ₦7.79 billion linked to account numbers 2010155010 and 2010155011.
The court faulted the trial judge for treating the accounts as identical without explaining how the same current account holding approximately ₦50 million could also have produced the ₦1.8 billion transferred to the recovery account.
The appellate court stated that had the account containing the ₦1.8 billion been specifically covered by the April 10 freezing order, the EFCC’s appeal on that issue would have failed.
It therefore set aside the lower court’s order directing the reversal of the ₦1.8 billion, holding that the account from which the money was transferred was not among those covered by the freezing order.
Justice Sirajo held: “I find that the material before the court did not establish that the funds transferred under Exhibit FF2 emanated from any account frozen by the order of 10th April 2025.”
The appellate court, however, clarified that its decision should not be interpreted as validating the EFCC’s directive ordering the transfer of the ₦1.8 billion into the CBN/EFCC recovery account.
In its determination of Achimugu’s substantive application seeking to discharge the freezing order, the Court of Appeal ruled that allowing an ex parte order freezing her accounts to remain in force for over 15 months was contrary to the principles governing such orders.
According to the court, an ex parte freezing order is only intended as a temporary measure to preserve disputed funds pending the hearing and determination of a motion on notice.
Summarising its decision, the court ruled: “In the result, the appeal succeeds in part. The first and second issues are resolved against the appellant (EFCC).
“The third issue is resolved in the appellant’s favour. In the final analysis, the ruling of the trial court directing the reversal of ₦1,800,000,000.00 is set aside on the ground of lack of proper evaluation of evidence.
“Accordingly, the ex parte interim freezing order granted by the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt Division, on 10th April, 2025 in Suit No. FHC/PH/MISC/178/2025, restricting and freezing the bank accounts of the respondent, Aisha Achimugu Sulaiman, and corporate entities linked to her, is hereby discharged and vacated in its entirety.”