The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has struck out a suit filed by businessman Abubakar Funtua, who challenged the alleged transfer of his 43 million shares to Emerging Markets Telecommunication Services Limited (EMTS), operators of 9mobile, without his consent.

In a ruling delivered on September 24, 2025, and obtained by Vanguard yesterday, Justice Mohammed Umar held that Funtua lacked the locus standi to institute the action, having failed to establish any enforceable interest in the disputed shares.

The defendants in the case 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 Danjuma.

Through his counsel, Femi Atteh, SAN, Funtua had instituted the suit on December 27, 2024, seeking 11 reliefs, including a declaration that he was the beneficial owner of the 43 million shares allegedly held in trust for him by Seltrix Limited in Teleology Nigeria Limited.

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, and C.C. Ogbonna, filed a joint preliminary objection dated February 5, 2025, urging the court to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and abuse of court process.

After considering arguments from both sides, Justice Umar upheld the objection, ruling that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any legal or beneficial ownership of the 43 million shares.

“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 43 million ordinary shares held in trust for the Plaintiff by the 1st Defendant mentioned,” the judge stated.

The court also noted that the 2nd defendant denied having any business dealings with the plaintiff, and this was not controverted. Justice Umar further held that the documents presented by Funtua did not establish a trust relationship capable of conferring legal standing.

“The said exhibits cannot by any imagination constitute a trust to confer locus standi on the Plaintiff,” the judge ruled, adding that Funtua also failed to properly link his claims to the documents tendered.

Umar concluded that since the plaintiff lacked the locus standi to bring the action, there was no need to address other objections raised by the defendants, including claims that the suit was statute-barred, incompetent, and frivolous.

“I resolve the issue of locus standi against the Plaintiff. 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,” Justice Umar held.

He subsequently ordered that the case be struck out for want of locus standi. (VANGUARD)

Update news