Court Strikes Out Businessman’s Suit Against 9mobile

The Federal High Court dismissed a lawsuit by businessman Abubakar Isa Funtua. In it, Funtua sought to reclaim 43 million shares that he alleged were transferred without his consent to Emerging Markets Telecommunication Services Limited (EMTS), the operators of 9mobile.

Justice Mohammed Umar dismissed the suit because it lacked legal standing and abused the court process.

The plaintiff has joined 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 General Theophilus Yakubu Danjuma as defendants in the case.

Isa had asked the court for eleven reliefs, including a declaration that he was the beneficial owner of the disputed shares, which were allegedly held in trust for him by Seltrix Ltd on behalf of Teleology Nigeria Ltd.

However, five defendants had filed a joint preliminary objection on February 5, 2025, arguing that the case should be dismissed due to a lack of jurisdiction and as an abuse of court process.

After hearing the parties, Justice Umar upheld the objection, stating that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate any legal interest in the matter.

Justice Umar held, “I carefully reviewed the exhibits to see if the plaintiff’s allegations were substantiated, but I found none.

“There was no mention of the 43 million ordinary shares held in trust for the plaintiff by the 1st defendant. Furthermore, the 2nd defendant denied any business relationship with the plaintiff, and these facts were not countered.

“The exhibits presented by the plaintiff do not constitute a trust that would grant him legal standing. The judge held that the plaintiff did not adequately link his claims to the evidence he tendered.

The court further stated that the plaintiff did not establish the facts he claimed nor connect them to the exhibits he presented.

Justice Umar also held, “The objections raised by the defendants adequately countered the plaintiff’s submissions.

“I find that the plaintiff lacks legal standing, and according to the law, when a plaintiff is adjudged to lack standing, it is irrelevant what other issues are presented for determination.

“Since the plaintiff lacked the capacity to bring the suit, the court deemed it unnecessary to address the remaining objections raised by the defendants, which included claims that the suit was statute-barred, incompetent, and that Isa was a meddlesome interloper attempting to disrupt EMTS’s operations.

“I therefore issue an order striking out this action due to the plaintiff’s lack of standing. This is the order of this court,” the judge held.