Employee of Eunisel Resumes Jan 29
Hearing in the fraud case between the federal government and Kenneth Amadi, a former employee of Eunisell Limited, resumes on January 29, 2020.The case was to have begun on January 8, but was shifted because courts were on break.
Amadi is alleged to have obtained the sum of N2.9 billion belonging to his former employer, Eunisell Ltd under false pretences with intent to defraud.
The offences are contrary to Section 1(1)(a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other fraud-related offences Act, CapA6, laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and punishable under section 1(3) of the same Act.
When the matter was called for hearing on November 27, 2019, the 1st defendant was absent, while the 2nd defendant, IDID Nigeria Ltd. was represented by an employee.
Chief State Counsel from the Department of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, A.K Aliyu had informed the court that attempts were made to serve the charge on the 1st Defendant through his counsel but the lawyer from the office of the learned silk declined to accept service. However, the defendant’s counsel, Mr. Emeka Etiaba (SAN) told the court that they were not opposing arraignment and trial, adding it was an error of communication on the part of the junior colleague regarding the issue of acceptance of service. He then accepted the charge and court summons of behalf of the 1st Defendant
The charges against the Defendants include receiving and obtaining by false pretence, with intent to defraud, the sum of N2, 900, 000, 000 belonging to Eunisell Ltd, omitting to make full and true entry thereof in the books and accounts; suppression of data in respect of the financial transfer to Eunisell Ltd, and converting same without authority to create sufficient deposits to promote the credibility of his own company (IDID Nigeria Limited).
Meanwhile, an Abuja High Court recently dismissed a libel case filed by Kenneth Amadi, against Eunisell Limited and two others.
Justice Jude Okeke, of The High Court of Justice, held that the libel or the publications having not been made out the other reliefs predicated on the defamation by way of general and special damages as claimed have no basis to stand.
