The Court of Appeal in Port Harcourt has discharged the interim order freezing the bank accounts of businesswoman and Oceangate Engineering Oil & Gas Ltd founder, Aisha Achimugu, as well as corporate entities linked to her, ruling that the ex parte order could not remain in force indefinitely.
Gatekeepers News reports that in a unanimous judgment delivered on Wednesday, a three-member panel comprising Justices Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo, Ishaq Mohammed Sani and Eleojo Enenche set aside the interim freezing order granted by the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt on April 10, 2025.
The appellate court, however, partly upheld an appeal filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), setting aside the lower court’s order directing the reversal of ₦1.8 billion transferred from one of the affected accounts to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)/EFCC recovery account.
Background
Justice Turaki Adamu of the Federal High Court had, on April 10, 2025, granted the EFCC’s application to freeze 124 bank accounts linked to Achimugu and ordered banks to halt all outward transactions from the accounts.
Achimugu later challenged the order, arguing that it amounted to an abuse of court process after the EFCC allegedly directed SunTrust Bank to transfer ₦1.8 billion from one of the frozen accounts to a CBN recovery account while the freezing order was still in effect.
On August 27, 2025, the trial court ruled that the transfer was unlawful and ordered the immediate reversal of the funds.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, the EFCC appealed, arguing that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to deliver the decision during its annual vacation, denied the commission a fair hearing by granting an unsolicited relief, and failed to properly evaluate evidence relating to the affected accounts.
Appeal Court’s Findings
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Sirajo dismissed the EFCC’s arguments on jurisdiction and fair hearing.
The court held that delivering a reserved judgment during the annual court vacation did not amount to conducting general legal business and caused no miscarriage of justice.
It also found that both parties had fully addressed the issue of the disputed transfer through additional affidavits filed before the lower 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,” the court held.
The appellate court further ruled that a court which grants a freezing order has the authority to make consequential orders necessary to preserve the subject matter of the case.
“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 said.
However, the court held that the evidence did not establish that the ₦1.8 billion transferred to the CBN/EFCC recovery account came from any account covered by the original freezing order.
According to the judgment, the accounts expressly frozen on April 10, 2025, were current accounts, including Drive.FGC.Net’s account with a balance of about ₦50.5 million and Felak Concepts Ltd’s account with approximately ₦16.2 million.
The court noted that the ₦1.8 billion was held in a separate fixed deposit account, while an additional ₦7.79 billion was linked to internal ledger accounts that were not shown to be covered by the freezing order.
“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 judge ruled.
The court stressed, however, that its decision should not be interpreted as validating the EFCC’s action in directing the transfer of the funds.
Freeze Order Vacated
In its ruling on Achimugu’s substantive application, the Court of Appeal held that allowing the ex parte freezing order to remain in force for more than 15 months amounted to an abuse of court process and undermined the rule of law.
The court explained that an ex parte freezing order is intended only as a temporary measure pending the hearing of the substantive application.
“In the result, the appeal succeeds in part. The first and second issues are resolved against the appellant (EFCC),” the court ruled.
“The third issue is resolved in the appellant’s favour. In the final analysis, the ruling of the trial Court directing the reversal of N1,800,000,000.00 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… 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.”
