Court Strikes out Isa Funtua’s Suit over Alleged Wrongful Transfer of 43m Shares to Operators of 9mobile

Wale Igbintade 

Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court in Abuja has struck out a suit by businessman, Abubakar Ismaila Isa Funtua, who claimed that his 43 million shares were wrongfully transferred to Emerging Markets Telecommunication Services Limited (EMTS), operators of 9mobile.

In a judgment delivered on September 24, 2025, the court held that Funtua, the sole plaintiff, lacked the legal capacity (locus standi) 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 Gen. Theophilus Yakubu Danjuma.

Funtua, through his counsel Femi Atteh (SAN), had filed the suit on December 27, 2024, seeking 11 reliefs, including a declaration that he was the beneficial owner of the disputed shares allegedly held in trust for him by Seltrix Ltd in Teleology Nigeria Ltd.

However, a joint preliminary objection by the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th, and 9th defendants, argued by Michael Aondoakaa (SAN), C.I. Okpoko (SAN), R.O. Atabo (SAN), A.T. Kohol, Esq., and C.C. Ogbonna, Esq., urged the court to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and abuse of court process.

After reviewing the arguments, Justice Umar ruled that Isa failed to demonstrate any legal interest in the subject matter.

The judge held: “Nowhere was there any figure of the 43,000,000 ordinary shares held in trust for the plaintiff by the 1st defendant mentioned. In fact, the 2nd defendant denied any business dealings with the plaintiff, and these facts were not controverted. The said exhibits cannot, by any imagination, constitute a trust to confer locus standi on the plaintiff.”

The court further noted that the plaintiff failed to substantiate his claims with credible evidence, adding that his exhibits were effectively neutralised by the defendants’ counter-affidavit, which went unchallenged.

“I find that the objectors have adequately countered the said exhibits in their reply on points of law in tandem with the law that failure to respond to a counter affidavit is deemed to be an admission,” Justice Umar held.

In the final analysis, the judge added: “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 court noted that since the plaintiff lacked the capacity to institute the action, there was no need to make a pronouncement on grounds two to nine (2-9) of the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 9th defendants’ notice of preliminary objections, which included claims that the suit was statute-barred, incompetent, and that Isa was a “meddlesome interloper” seeking to frustrate the operations of EMTS.

“I therefore make an order striking out this action for lack of locus standi of the plaintiff. This is the order of this court,” the judge added.