• Hot Source
• Hot News
• 8 views

Battle for Ownership of  9mobile Moves to the Court of Appeal

Battle for Ownership of  9mobile Moves to the Court of Appeal

Stories by Steve Aya

A businessman, Alhaji Abubakar Ismaila Isa, has filed a Notice of Appeal challenging the Ruling of Honourable Justice M.G. Umar of the Federal High Court, Abuja, delivered on the 24th day of September, 2025 in Suit No.: FHC/ABJ.CS/1971/2024.

Alhaji Abubakar Ismaila Isa had earlier sued Seltrix Limited & 8 Ors with respect to illegal transfer of 43 million ordinary shares in the capital of Teleology Nigeria Limited.  

The Notice of Appeal was filed on the 13th day of October, 2025 at the Registry of the Federal High Court, Abuja. The Respondents in the appeal are Seltrix Limited, Hayatu Hassan Hadejia, Teleology Nigeria Limited, Mohammed Edewor, Emerging Markets Telecommunication Services Limited, Corporate Affairs Commission, Nigerian Communications Commission, LH Telecommunication Limited, and Gen. Theophilus Yakubu Danjuma.

The Judge struck out the Suit of the Appellant on the ground that the Appellant has no locus standi to institute the Suit. The Court in its Ruling 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…”.

However, the Appellant, Alhaji Abubakar Ismaila Isa faulted the decision of the Court in his Notice of Appeal, as contained in his two principal grounds of appeal. The Appellant insists that locus standi (the legal standing to sue) should be determined solely from the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim, as per established case law (Pharmatek Ind. Ltd. v Trade Bank Nigeria Plc).

‎Abubakar Isa, through his legal team led by Femi Atteh, SAN, states that the lower court failed to recognise that when locus standi is challenged, all claims in the Statement of Claim should be accepted as correct. ‎The Appellant also raised the ground of improper consideration of substantive issues, at  the preliminary stage.

‎Abubakar Ismaila Isa is contending that, the trial Judge incorrectly delved into the substantive issue of trust between the Appellant and the 1st Respondent, in his Ruling on the preliminary objection. ‎The Appellant said whether a trust existed regarding 43 million shares or not is a substantive issue, not to be decided before full trial.

‎The Appellant asserts that the 1st Respondent holds the shares in trust and has breached that trust, establishing the basis for locus standi. The Appellant is relying on Sections 10 and 11 of the Federal High Court Act.  

‎Abubakar Ismaila Isa is, therefore, praying the Court of Appeal to allow the appeal and set aside the Ruling of the Federal High Court dated September 24, 2025. ‎He is also praying the Appellate Court to remit the case file to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, for reassignment to another Judge to hear and determine the Suit properly.

‎The Registrar of the Federal High Court has summoned all parties to appear on November 5, 2025 for the settlement of the Record of Appeal at the Federal High Court Headquarters in Abuja.

​  

Stories by Steve Aya A businessman, Alhaji Abubakar Ismaila Isa, has filed a Notice of Appeal challenging the Ruling of Honourable Justice M.G. Umar of the Federal High Court, Abuja,

• Hot Source
• Hot News
• 7 views

Whether Proof of Resulting Trust Can Invalidate Legal Title to a Property

Whether Proof of Resulting Trust Can Invalidate Legal Title to a Property

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Holden at Abuja

On Friday, the 14th day of April, 2025

Before Their Lordships

Ibrahim Muhammed Musa Saulawa

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim

Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme

Stephen Jonah Adah

Jamilu Yammama Tukur

Justices, Supreme Court

SC.1049/2016

Between

MICHAEL AFOLAJIMI JOLUGBO                                         APPELLANT

(Suing on behalf of himself and other 

Beneficiaries of the Estate of M.A. Julogbo)

       And

 1. MRS O.A. AINA                                                                                               RESPONDENTS

2. LAGOS STATE DEVELOPMENT AND

     PROPERTY CORPORATION (L.S.D.P.C)

(Lead Judgement  delivered by Honourable Jamilu Yammama Tukur, JSC) 

Facts

The appeal challenges the judgement of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, in Appeal No. CA/L/362/14 delivered on 30th March 2016 against the Appellant. The dispute centred on the validity of the title transfer of Flat 5 Block A 78, LSDPC Low-Cost Housing Estate, Dolphin, Anikantamo, Lagos, from the late Mr Olayinka Aina to the late M.A. Julogbo. Believing the 1st Respondent, who is Mr. Olayinka Aina’s wife was frustrating the sale, Mr. Aina and Mr Julogbo’s late father initiated Suit No. LD/3276/94 at the High Court of Lagos State, seeking a declaration that Mr Aina was the legal and beneficial owner of the property, that the title transfer to Julogbo was valid, and that Julogbo was entitled to possession. The 1st Respondent also filed Suit No. LD/769/97, claiming a trustee relationship existed between Mr Aina and herself, and that she is the beneficiary of the trust. She asserted that though the tile document of the property is in her husband’s name, she provided the funds for purchase of the property which was held in trust for her. She thereby, sought to set aside the sale to M.A. Julogbo.

The cases were consolidated for trial. On 19th November, 2004, the trial court found that a trust relationship existed between the 1st Respondent and Mr Olayinka Aina. The court, accordingly, set aside the sale. The Appellant’s late father and Mr Aina appealed, but, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on 30th March, 2016. Dissatisfied, the Appellant, on behalf of other beneficiaries of Mr Julogbo’s estate, filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. 

Issues for Determination

Two issues were raised in the Appellant’s brief for determination, thus:

i. WHETHER the court processes filed by the 1st Respondent in the consolidated suits, are competent as to vest the lower court with jurisdiction to determine her right over the property in dispute?

ii. WHETHER from the evidence before the lower Court, a Resultant or implied Trust, can be implied to exist in favour of the 1st Respondent? If the answer is in the negative, whether the lower court, having found that the legal title resides in the 2nd Claimant, should not have held that the said Claimant validly transferred the legal title to the 1st Claimant?

Counsel for the 1st Respondent on his part raised four issues for determination of the appeal, while Counsel for the 2nd Respondent formulated two issues. The Supreme Court opined that the central question in the appeal is – Whether the lower courts were right to have granted the 1st Respondent’s title over the disputed property, on the principle of resulting trust.

Arguments

Counsel for the Appellant argued that there is no evidence, explicit or implied, demonstrating that Mr Olayinka Aina intended to transfer the property to the 1st Respondent on trust. He posited that at trial, the 1st Respondent produced no documentary title, but relied solely on oral testimony, which was outweighed by the substantial documentary evidence of title presented by the husband. Counsel supported this position with the authorities EZENNAH v ATTA (2004) 17 W.R.N. 1 S.C., MADU v MADU (2008) 2-3 S.C. (PT. II) 109, and FAGBENRO v AROBADI (2006) 19 W.R.N. 1 S.C. He submitted further that the 1st Respondent failed to establish any of the five recognised methods enumerated by the Supreme Court, to prove ownership of the disputed property. Conversely, the husband presented documentary evidence supporting his ownership. The Appellant placed reliance on the documents emanating from the 2nd Respondent, and there is no single document of title registered in the name of “Mrs Aina”, the 1st Respondent. Counsel relied on the authority of OJOH v KAMALU (2006) 6 W.R.N. 110 S.C. and AGBAREH v MIMRA (2008) 1 S.C. (Pt.3) 88, to buttress his submission.

Counsel contended that, Mr Aina had legal authority to transfer title to the Appellant. He argued further that, even if the 1st Respondent’s claim of a resulting trust were to succeed, the Appellant would still qualify as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice—be it actual, constructive, or implied – as the Appellant duly conducted a title search at the 2nd Respondent’s office, which confirmed allocation to the said Mr Aina, with no indication of any trust affecting the property. Lastly, he argued that the 1st Respondent’s evidence regarding payments for mortgage and repairs, does not override the superior title evidence adduced by Mr Aina, and does not support her claim to a resulting trust. Furthermore, these documents are inconsistent with her testimony, where she expressly stated that she had no direct dealings with LSDPC and LBIC.

On the part of the 1st Respondent, Counsel contended that during the trial, the 1st Respondent, through both oral and documentary evidence, successfully established the circumstances giving rise to a presumption of a resulting trust in her favour. This formed the basis for the concurrent findings of the trial Judge and the Court of Appeal Justices, that a resulting trust indeed, existed in favour of the 1st Respondent. It was argued that the 1st Respondent paid the initial fees, contributed significantly to the property’s development, made mortgage repayments, and paid for the mandatory insurance policy on the flat, with her father acting as Guarantor, despite her husband’s father being alive during the relevant period. Counsel clarified further that the 1st Respondent did not dispute that legal title to the property was vested in her husband, as his name appeared on the title documents; however, she maintained that the equitable interest belonged to her, given her financial contributions toward the purchase and related expenses, thereby, creating a resulting trust for which she is the beneficiary.

Counsel submitted that the Appellant’s claim to ownership based solely on the title document bearing the name of Mr Aina was misplaced, as proof of a resulting trust invalidates the title. Counsel argued that the defence of a bona fide purchaser without notice would not succeed, because the Appellant’s father failed to exercise due diligence. The father did not demand the original title documents before the purchase, and admitted he neither inspected the flat nor investigated the tenancy, which would have revealed that the property belonged to the 1st Respondent. It was contended that Mr Aina acted in bad faith, and colluded with the Appellant to deprive the 1st Respondent of her proprietary interest. This argument referenced CLAY INDUSTRIES NIGERIA LTD v AINA (1997) 8 NWLR (PT. 516) P. 208; FASESIN v OYERINDE (1997) 11 NWLR (PT. 530) 552; GBADAMOSI v AKINLOYE (2013) 15 NWLR (PT. 1378) P. 455; ABBA v S.P.D.C.N LTD (2013) 11 NWLR (PT. 1364) P. 86; and ORONTI v ONIGBANJO (2012) 12 NWLR (PT. 1313) P. 23.

Court’s Judgement and Rationale

In resolving the issue of whether, given the circumstances of the case, a trust exists between Mr Olayinka Aina and the 1st Respondent (Mrs. O.A Aina), the Supreme Court distinguished between express trust and implied trust. Their Lordships explained that an express trust is evidenced by a trust deed, which clearly identifies the parties to the trust. In the case of an implied trust, resulting or constructive trust, an implied trust arises when the court infers the existence of a trust from the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the property. In such cases, the beneficiary of the trust is recognised as the true owner of the property, even though the legal title is held by the trustee. As a result of this, “the trustee must deal with the property in a way that would corrode the interests of the beneficiary.” The Supreme Court relied on its earlier decision in HUBNER v AERONAUTICAL INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING & PROJECT MANAGEMENT CO. LTD (2017) LPELR 42078(SC) (Pp 10 – 11 Paras D-E) where it was held that “when property has been acquired in such circumstance that the holder of the legal title may not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest, equity converts him into a trustee … Constructive trust is neither granted nor accepted, but it is foisted upon the parties by the operation of law”.

Applying the above principles of trust to the facts of this case, the Supreme Court held that “the circumstances were one in which a trust relationship could be validly read into between the 1st Respondent and her deceased husband, the 2nd Claimant at trial, to the effect that she advanced money to her husband to buy a house on her behalf, so that even though he is the legal owner and his name appeared on all documents of title, her right is superior because she is the ultimate beneficiary and the true owner.” 

The court noted further that the Appellant’s argument, relying on the existence of legal title documents and the 1st Respondent’s failure to prove ownership by conventional means, was misplaced. The issue was not about legal ownership of the property, but rather whether the legal owner (the 2nd Claimant at the trial court) held the property in trust for the 1st Respondent. The Supreme Court emphasised that the 1st Respondent’s status as beneficial owner, is supported by the fact that she funded the purchase and made mortgage payments on the property.

The court concluded that the Appellant failed to give concrete grounds, for the Supreme Court to abrogate from the concurrent findings of the lower courts. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal for lacking in merit. 

Appeal Dismissed. 

Representation

Oladele Ojogbede for the Appellant. 

Micheal A. Aribisala for the 1st Respondent.

Olugbenga Ajala for the 2nd Respondent.

Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)(An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.)

​  

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Holden at Abuja On Friday, the 14th day of April, 2025 Before Their Lordships Ibrahim Muhammed Musa Saulawa Emmanuel Akomaye Agim Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme

• Hot Source
• Hot News
• 8 views

New Era for Niger Rep. Football as FIFA Opens Two Mini-pitches in Niamey

New Era for Niger Rep. Football as FIFA Opens Two Mini-pitches in Niamey

The West African country of Niger Republic witnessed historic moment in their football history after global soccer governing body, FIFA, on Friday inaugurated two mini-pitches as part of the FIFA Arenas project

The two pitches situated at the CES 22 Talladje and CES 9 Harobanda primary school, both in the capital Niamey, ensures Niger becomes one of the 11 Member Associations to benefit from the initiative which has one of key projects under the FIFA Forward programme.

The ultramodern sustainable facilities will provide students with a safe and inspiring space to hone their football skills, giving a ray of hope to about 10,000 youth in communities within the two schools. 

The project is expected to impact positively and allowing youth from surrounding communities to play football in ideal conditions, promoting social inclusion, personal growth, and passion for sport.

FIFA President, Gianni Infantino, cited the project as a watershed moment for football development in the West African country.

 “Congratulations to the Nigerien Football Federation (FENIFOOT). You are part of our Starting 11—the first 11 countries to officially inaugurate their own FIFA Arena mini-pitches. You are contributing to a project capable of changing the lives of millions of children,” Infantino said.

His declaration was echoed by Issaka Adamou, FENIFOOT President who said the landmark project will mark a new chapter for grassroots football development in the country.

 “When football becomes an educational tool, it’s a whole country preparing its youth’s future. Niger is committed to inclusive, dynamic, and civic-minded schooling through the power of sport. Integrating football into schools to strengthen civic education, social inclusion, and youth development through sport allows Niger to take a major step forward with FIFA for grassroots education and football.”

The FIFA Arena project is part of a global initiative to build mini-pitches worldwide, in line with the commitment made by the FIFA President Infantino at the Sustainable Sport Summit in Paris in July 2024. The project supports the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals by offering more play opportunities to children, especially in disadvantaged urban and rural areas.

The Starting Eleven code-named from the 11 players commencing a game has seen Member Associations (MA’s) such as Georgia, Thailand and Paraguay inaugurating similar FIFA Arena mini-pitches. The project is being rolled out globally with the goal of installing at least 1,000 new mini pitches by 2031.

In Africa, Niger is the third Africa country to benefit from the initiative after Algeria and recently, Liberia.

The FIFA Arena comes under the bigger FIFA Forward scheme launched in 2016, and seeks to fairly redistribute FIFA’s revenues to its 211 member associations. Dubbed the world’s largest sports development programme, it is in line with FIFA’s plans to invest a record USD 5 billion in football by the end of 2026.

Similar views were shared by Elkhan Mammadov, FIFA Chief Member Association Officer who remarked “I’m delighted to see Nigerien youth inaugurate these FIFA Arena mini pitches today. These brand-new spaces offer Niamey’s children a safe and inspiring environment to play and grow through football.

Meanwhile, construction of FENIFOOT’s new headquarters, funded by the FIFA Forward programme, is progressing steadily as the six-storey facility will offer a professional and structured environment for football development in the country.

 “The FIFA Forward programme is tangibly transforming football in all FIFA member countries. In Niger, the new FENIFOOT headquarters and mini pitches in Niamey illustrate FIFA’s commitment to making football truly global, inclusive, and sustainable by investing in infrastructure that strengthen the football landscape,” highlighted Gelson Fernandes, Deputy FIFA Chief Member Associations Officer and Regional Director for Africa.

The state-of-the-art building aligns with  FENIFOOT’s  strategy to improve infrastructure, enhance working conditions for staff and regional league personnel, and expand accommodation capacity at the technical center. With a total cost of nearly USD 4.2 million, the project is fully funded by FIFA Forward and will take at least 12 months to complete.

​  

The West African country of Niger Republic witnessed historic moment in their football history after global soccer governing body, FIFA, on Friday inaugurated two mini-pitches as part of the FIFA