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, and companies linked to her, while partially allowing an appeal filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
In a unanimous judgment delivered by a three-member panel comprising Justices Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo, Ishaq Mohammed Sani and Eleojo Enenche, the 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 was inconsistent with the principles of justice.
The appellate court consequently vacated the interim freezing order issued by the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt on April 10, 2025.
The case stemmed from an ex parte application filed by the EFCC, which had secured an order freezing 124 bank accounts linked to Achimugu and directing financial institutions to halt all outward transactions on the accounts.
Achimugu later challenged the order, arguing that it had been abused after the EFCC allegedly instructed SunTrust Bank, through a letter dated April 24, 2025, to transfer ₦1.8 billion from one of the frozen accounts into a Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)/EFCC recovery account despite the subsisting court order.
In a ruling delivered on August 27, 2025, the Federal High Court declared the transfer unlawful and ordered that the ₦1.8 billion be returned to the affected account.
Dissatisfied with that decision, the EFCC appealed, arguing that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to deliver its ruling during the annual court vacation, denied the commission a fair hearing and improperly granted reliefs that were not specifically sought.
The Court of Appeal rejected the EFCC’s arguments on jurisdiction and fair hearing, holding that delivering a reserved judgment during the court’s annual vacation does not amount to conducting regular court business and does not invalidate the proceedings.
The appellate court also ruled that the trial court was empowered to make consequential orders necessary to preserve the integrity of its earlier freezing order, including directing the reversal of funds removed from a frozen account without the court’s approval.
However, the appellate court found that the evidence before the trial court did not establish that the ₦1.8 billion transferred into the CBN/EFCC recovery account originated from any of the accounts specifically covered by the freezing order.
According to the court, the accounts frozen by the April 10, 2025 order contained balances far below ₦1.8 billion, while the larger sum was held in separate fixed deposit and internal ledger accounts that were not expressly listed in the freezing order.
The appellate court faulted the trial judge for treating the different accounts as one without sufficient evidence linking the transferred funds to the frozen accounts.
It therefore set aside the lower court’s order directing the reversal of the ₦1.8 billion, holding that the available evidence did not justify that conclusion.
Justice Sirajo, who delivered the lead judgment, clarified that the ruling should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the EFCC’s directive authorising the transfer of the funds into the recovery account.
On Achimugu’s application challenging the freezing order itself, the Court of Appeal held that an ex parte freezing order is intended only as a temporary measure pending the hearing of the substantive application and should not remain in force indefinitely.
The court ruled that keeping the order in place for more than 15 months violated the principles governing interim reliefs.
The appellate court subsequently discharged and vacated in its entirety the interim freezing order issued by the Federal High Court against Achimugu and all corporate entities linked to her, while allowing the EFCC’s appeal only on the issue relating to the reversal of the ₦1.8 billion.
