Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed September 24 to rule on several applications in the case of Abubakar Ismaila Isa, a businessman, who claims that his 43 million shares were allegedly transferred to Emerging Markets Telecommunication Services Limited, operating under the trade name 9mobile, without his consent.
The matter before Justice Mohammed Umar on Wednesday, was filed by Isa’s legal team led by Femi Atteh, SAN, in suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1971/2024.
The plaintiff seeks an order declaring him the “beneficial owner of the 43,000,000 (forty-three million) ordinary shares held in trust for him by the 1st Defendant (Seltrix Limited) in the capital of the 3rd Defendant (Teleology Nigeria Limited).”
He accused Seltrix Limited of purportedly transferring the said shares to 9mobile without his consent, resulting in the alleged illegal change of control of 9mobile to LH Telecommunication Limited by the Corporate Affairs Commission and Nigerian Communications Commission.
Joined as defendants in the suit are Seltrix Limited, Hayatu Hassan Hadeija, Teleology Nigeria Limited, Mohammed Edewor, Emerging Markets Telecommunications Limited, CAC, NCC, LH Telecommunication Limited and General Theophilus Yakubu Danjuma (Rtd) (first to ninth defendants).
A counter-affidavit sworn to and filed on behalf of Seltrix Limited, Hadejia had described the plaintiff’s application as a reckless abuse of the court process.
He urged the court to dismiss the application and award substantial costs against the plaintiff.
He also demanded concrete evidence of any trusteeship arrangement involving him or Seltrix Limited concerning the alleged N43 million ordinary shares in the capital of the third defendant, Teleology Nigeria Limited, or any matter related to the suit.
Hadejia stated that the plaintiff’s motion, dated 27 January but filed on 28 January, was a fabrication designed to mislead the court.
At the resumed hearing, Michael Aôndoakaa, SAN, counsel for Teleology, 9mobile, and others, drew the court’s attention to his preliminary objections, asking the court to strike out the case for “being statute-barred” as it was filed out of the stipulated time required.