The Court of Appeal in Port Harcourt has set aside the interim order freezing 124 bank accounts belonging to businesswoman Aisha Achimugu and companies associated with her, ruling that allowing the ex parte order to remain in force for more than 15 months amounted to an abuse of court process.
In a unanimous judgment delivered on Wednesday, a three-member panel comprising Justices Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo, Ishaq Mohammed Sani, and Eleojo Enenche discharged the freezing order originally granted by the Federal High Court on April 10, 2025.
The appeal stemmed from a suit filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against the Federal High Court’s ruling of August 27, 2025. The lower court had initially granted the EFCC’s ex parte application, freezing 124 bank accounts linked to Achimugu, founder of Oceangate Engineering Oil & Gas Ltd, and restraining banks from processing outward transactions on the accounts.
Achimugu later challenged the order, arguing that it had become an abuse of court process. She also alleged that despite the subsisting freezing order, the EFCC directed SunTrust Bank to transfer ₦1.8 billion from one of the affected accounts to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)/EFCC recovery account.
The Federal High Court subsequently ruled that the transfer was unlawful and ordered the immediate return of the funds. Dissatisfied, the EFCC appealed, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to deliver its judgment during the court’s annual vacation, denied the commission fair hearing, and improperly evaluated the affidavit evidence.
In the lead judgment, Justice Sirajo dismissed the EFCC’s arguments, holding that delivering a reserved judgment during the annual vacation did not amount to conducting general court business or result in a miscarriage of justice. The court also ruled that the commission was not denied fair hearing, as both parties had filed additional affidavits on the disputed transfer.
However, the appellate court found that the ₦1.8 billion originated from a fixed deposit account that was not among the accounts covered by the April 10, 2025 freezing order. It therefore set aside the lower court’s directive ordering the reversal of the funds, stating that the evidence failed to establish that the money came from any account subject to the freeze.
The court clarified that its decision should not be interpreted as validating the EFCC’s action in directing the transfer of the funds.
On Achimugu’s substantive application, the Court of Appeal held that an interim ex parte freezing order cannot remain in force indefinitely. It ruled that maintaining the order for more than 15 months defeated its temporary purpose of preserving assets pending the hearing of a motion on notice.
The appellate court consequently discharged and vacated the interim freezing order issued by the Federal High Court on April 10, 2025, against Achimugu and the companies linked to her.
