The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has struck out a suit filed by a businessman and late President Muhammadu Buhari’s son in-law, Abubakar Funtua, who challenged the alleged transfer of his 43 million shares to Emerging Markets Telecommunication Services Limited (EMTS), operators of 9mobile, without his consent.
Delivering judgment on the matter marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1971/2024, Justice Mohammed Umar, held that Funtua, the lone plaintiff, lacked the locus standi (legal capacity) to file the action against the nine defendants.
The defendants in the case were 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.
Funtua, through his counsel, Femi Atteh (SAN), had commenced the suit on December 27, 2024, seeking 11 reliefs, including a declaration that he was the beneficial owner of the disputed shares allegedly held in trust for him by Seltrix Ltd in Teleology Nigeria Ltd.
However, the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th, and 9th defendants, represented by Michael Aondakaa (SAN), C.I. Okpoko (SAN), R.O. Atabo (SAN), A.T. Kohol, and C.C. Ogbonna, filed a joint preliminary objection dated February 5, 2025, urging the court to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction and as an abuse of court process.
After reviewing arguments from all parties, Justice Umar, on September 24, 2025, upheld the objection, ruling that Funtua failed to show any legal interest in the subject matter.
Justice Umar held: “I carefully perused the said exhibit to see if the allegation of the Plaintiff is substantiated; I did not find any. Nowhere was there any figure of the 43 million ordinary shares held in trust for the Plaintiff by the 1st Defendant mentioned.
“In fact, the 2nd Defendant denied any business dealings with the Plaintiff, and these facts were not controverted by the Plaintiff.
“The said exhibits cannot, by any imagination, constitute a trust to confer locus standi on the Plaintiff. The said exhibits were tendered by the Plaintiff, but nowhere did they link the Plaintiff to his claims to enable him to institute an action on the facts alleged therein.”
Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the facts he asserted and to link his claims to the exhibits he himself tendered by virtue of averment in this suit.
“I find that the objectors have adequately countered the said exhibits in their reply on points of law in tandem with the law that failure to respond to a counter-affidavit is deemed to be an admission,” Justice Umar held.
In the final analysis, the judge added: “I resolve the issue of locus standi against the Plaintiff, and the law is that where a Plaintiff has been adjudged to lack locus standi, it does not matter what other issues have been raised for determination in the suit.”
The court noted that, since the Plaintiff lacked the capacity to institute the action, there was no need to make a pronouncement on grounds two to nine (2–9) of the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th, and 9th Defendants’ Notice of Preliminary Objections, which included claims that the suit was statute-barred, incompetent, and that Funtua was a “meddlesome interloper” seeking to frustrate the operations of EMTS.
The court, therefore, made an order striking out this action for lack of locus standi of the Plaintiff.
