Court Strikes Out Funtua’s Suit Against 9mobile Over Alleged Share Transfer
A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has struck out a suit filed by businessman Abubakar Ismaila Isa Funtua, who alleged that his 43 million shares were unlawfully transferred without his consent to Emerging Markets Telecommunication Services Limited (EMTS), operators of 9mobile.
Delivering judgment in the case marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1971/2024 on 24 September 2025, Justice Mohammed Umar held that Isa, the sole plaintiff, lacked the locus standi (legal capacity) to institute 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.
Isa, represented by Femi Atteh, SAN, had filed the suit on 27 December 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 Limited in Teleology Nigeria Limited.
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, Esq., and C.C. Ogbonna, Esq.—filed a joint preliminary objection dated 5 February 2025, urging the court to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction and as an abuse of court process.
After reviewing the submissions from all parties, Justice Umar upheld the objection, ruling that Isa failed to demonstrate any legal interest in the subject matter.
“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 43,000,000 ordinary shares held in trust for the plaintiff by the first defendant mentioned,” the judge stated.
He further observed that the second defendant denied any business dealings with the plaintiff, a claim that was not contested by Isa. The court held that the exhibits tendered by the plaintiff “cannot by any imagination constitute a trust to confer locus standi” or link him to the disputed shares.
Justice Umar also noted that the plaintiff failed to substantiate his assertions or tie his claims to the evidence presented.
“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 an admission,” he held.
In his final ruling, Justice Umar resolved the issue of locus standi against Isa, emphasising that once a plaintiff is found to lack the capacity to sue, all other issues raised in the case become irrelevant.
“I therefore make an order striking out this action for lack of locus standi of the plaintiff. This is the order of this court,” the judge declared.
The court consequently declined to rule on other issues raised by the defendants, including claims that the suit was statute-barred, incompetent, and that Isa was a “meddlesome interloper” seeking to frustrate the operations of EMTS.
