The Court of Appeal, located in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, has nullified the temporary order that froze 124 bank accounts owned by businesswoman Aisha Achimugu, along with related corporate entities, ruling that the ex parte order’s ongoing existence for over 15 months represented a misuse of judicial authority.
This decision was reached unanimously on Wednesday by a panel of three judges, including Justices Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo, Ishaq Mohammed Sani, and Eleojo Enenche, who cancelled the interim freezing order that the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt had imposed on April 10, 2025.
The appeal stemmed from legal action initiated by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) following the Federal High Court’s decision issued on August 27, 2025.
The Federal High Court had approved the EFCC’s ex parte request for a temporary order that resulted in 124 bank accounts linked to Achimugu—who is the founder of Oceangate Engineering Oil & Gas Ltd—being frozen, while also preventing the involved banks from allowing any outgoing transactions on these accounts until the matter’s resolution.
In response, Achimugu sought to have the order removed, arguing that its persistent enforcement was a misuse of the legal process. She additionally claimed that despite the existing order, the EFCC had instructed SunTrust Bank, via a letter dated April 24, 2025, to transfer ₦1.8 billion from one of the frozen accounts to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)/EFCC recovery account.
On August 27, 2025, the Federal High Court ruled that the fund transfer was illegal and commanded the immediate undoing of the transaction.
Dissatisfied with this ruling, the EFCC filed an appeal on three specific bases, arguing that the trial court did not have the authority to make its ruling during the judiciary’s annual break, denied the Commission a fair hearing by granting unrequested relief, and did not properly assess the affidavit evidence related to the impacted accounts and their balances.
In the lead judgment, Justice Sirajo dismissed the jurisdictional argument, stating that delivering a reserved judgment while the court is on its annual break does not equate to engaging in general legal business and does not result in a miscarriage of justice.
The appellate court also rejected the EFCC’s claim that it was denied a fair hearing, pointing out that both sides submitted additional affidavits related to the disputed fund transfer before the lower court and were given sufficient opportunities to present their arguments.
Nevertheless, regarding the contested transfer of ₦1.8 billion, the Court of Appeal determined that the account from which the funds were moved was not included in the interim freezing order enacted on April 10, 2025.
The court noted that the accounts that were frozen included current accounts for Drive.FGC.Net and Felak Concepts Ltd, which had balances of around ₦50.5 million and ₦16.2 million respectively, while the contested ₦1.8 billion was contained in a distinct fixed deposit account along with ₦7.79 billion that was held in internal ledger accounts.
As a result, the court determined that the evidence presented to the trial court failed to prove that the ₦1.8 billion came from any account affected by the freezing order. It subsequently annulled the lower court’s order to reverse the funds.
Nonetheless, the appellate court made it clear that its ruling should not be interpreted as a support or validation of the EFCC’s actions in ordering the transfer of the funds.
Regarding the substantive application presented by Achimugu, the Court of Appeal reiterated that interim ex parte freezing orders are temporary measures meant to be effective only until the hearing and resolution of a motion on notice. The court ruled that allowing such an order to remain in effect for over 15 months was contrary to its intended purpose and represented an abuse of the court process.
Therefore, the Court of Appeal entirely discharged and annulled the interim freezing order that the Federal High Court issued on April 10, 2025, against Aisha Achimugu and the corporate entities associated with her.
This ruling highlights the appellate court’s reaffirmation of the concept that, although interim preservation orders are a vital tool in probing alleged financial crimes, their ongoing enforcement must comply with due process, judicial oversight, and prompt resolution.
