site logo
Skip to case content
Case Digest

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA V. OZEKHOME (2021)

Court of Appeal (Lagos Division)

Coram
  • Chidi N. Uwa JCA (Presided)
  • Tunde O. Awotoye JCA
  • James Gambo Abundaga JCA
Parties

Appellant:

  • Federal Republic of Nigeria

Respondent:

  • Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN)
Suit number
CA/L/174/19
Delivered on

Background

This case revolves around an appeal by the Federal Republic of Nigeria against a ruling delivered on April 4, 2017, by the Federal High Court in Lagos. The ruling concerned an ex-parte interim order that had initially frozen an account belonging to Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN. The Federal Republic sought this order based on an investigation but subsequently faced challenges regarding the validity of this order.

Issues

Three main legal issues arose from this case:

  1. The jurisdiction of the lower court to set aside its interim order before the expiration of 120 days granted for investigation.
  2. Whether the lower court relied on appropriate evidence when it set aside the interim order based on the receipt of N75,000,000.00 for services rendered to Ozekhome.
  3. The application of the Money Laundering Prohibition Act, specifically the exclusion of legal practitioners from being considered as designated non-financial institutions.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that:

  1. Courts have inherent power to set aside their decisions under certain circumstances, such as lack of jurisdiction or suppression of material facts.
  2. Ex-parte orders have a short lifespan, emphasizing that they must not last beyond a few days without review.
  3. Legal practitioners are excluded from the definition of 'designated non-financial institutions' under the Money Laundering Prohibition Act, presenting no obligation to investigate the source of fees received from clients.

Court Findings

The Court found that:

  1. The lower court acted within its jurisdiction by setting aside its interim order based on the new evidence presented.
  2. The evidence supported the conclusion that the funds received by Ozekhome were not derived from illicit activities, as he was operating from a defrozen account regulated by a court.
  3. The argument surrounding the professional fees does not imply complicity in alleged unlawful activities, reaffirming the position that legal fees cannot be classified as illicit funds.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower court's decision, which concluded that the freezing order was improper due to unaddressed facts surrounding the account's status.

Significance

This ruling reaffirms the importance of proper judicial procedure in obtaining ex-parte orders and clarifies the legal framework relating to money laundering as it pertains to legal practitioners in Nigeria. It establishes a meaningful precedent in the jurisdiction, safeguarding the rights of legal practitioners against unfounded allegations of complicity in criminal activities based solely on the source of professional fees.

Counsel:

  • U.U. Buhari, Esq. - for the Appellant
  • Ejike Onuoha, Esq. - for the Respondent