Orlean Invest Challenges Court Ruling, Files Appeal Against Aircraft Forfeiture Judgment

Orlean Invest Africa Limited has formally appealed the judgement of the Federal High Court in Abuja that ordered the seizure and forfeiture of a Bombardier BD-700 Global 6000 aircraft, insisting that the decision was reached without evidence and amounts to a serious miscarriage of justice. The company also filed for a stay of execution of the Federal High Court judgment.

The notice of appeal was filed on 23 January 2026 by the company’s lead counsel, Mr. Ama Etuwewe (SAN), a day after the Federal High Court delivered its ruling. The appeal, now before the Court of Appeal, sets out seven grounds challenging both the factual findings and legal conclusions of the trial court.

At the heart of Orlean Invest Africa’s appeal is the argument that the Federal High Court wrongly concluded that the aircraft was imported into Nigeria by the company and remained in the country without payment of customs duties. The appellants maintain that there was no evidence whatsoever before the court to support such a finding. They contend that the aircraft does not belong to Orlean Invest Africa Limited and that no proof was presented to establish ownership or importation by the company.

According to the appeal, the aircraft was flown into Nigeria strictly on a charter basis as a visiting aircraft and never remained permanently in the country. The company further argues that the aircraft has at all times been registered on the Malta Aircraft Registry and was never transferred to Nigerian registration. It insists that unchallenged evidence before the trial court showed that the aircraft last entered Nigeria in 2018, contradicting the court’s conclusion that it was imported and remained in Nigeria. Orlean Invest Africa says the judge substituted speculation for proof and delivered a decision unsupported by the record.

The appellants also challenge the order of final forfeiture, arguing that there was no evidence before the Federal High Court to justify condemning the aircraft to the Federal Government. They insist that the trial judge wrongly held them liable for customs duty on an aircraft they neither own nor imported, and that no law or evidence supports such liability.

A further ground of appeal contests the refusal of the trial court to set aside the ex-parte order of seizure and detention made in June 2025. Orlean Invest Africa argues that the interim order was granted on the basis of bare and unsubstantiated claims by the Nigeria Customs Service, and that the order was obtained through misrepresentation or concealment of material facts. The company maintains that compelling legal and factual reasons to discharge the order were placed before the court but were wrongly ignored.