Patience Jonathan Files Fresh Suit To Recover Frozen $15.5m
Former First Lady, Mrs. Patience Jonathan on Monday, refiled a fundamental rights enforcement suit seeking to recover the $15.5 million domiciled in an account with Skye bank Plc frozen by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
Mrs. Jonathan refiled the suit following a ruling delivered by Justice Mohammed Idris of the Federal High Court in Lagos on May 8, directing her to refile the suit through writ rather than by originating summons.
The former first lady in the suit is claiming the sum of $200 million against the EFCC, Skye Bank Plc, a former special assistant to her husband, Waripama-Owei Dudafa and four others for what she described as the inconvenience and embarrassment she suffered as a result of the freezing of her accounts.
Also joined in the suit are: Pluto Property and Investment company Ltd, Seagate Property Development and Investment Company Ltd, Transocean Property and investment company Ltd and Globus Integrated Service Ltd.
It will be recalled that the four companies, which the EFCC claimed was used by Dudafa to launder the $15.591 million dollars, had already pleaded guilty to the offence of money laundering before Justice Babs Kuewumi of the same court.
The sum involved in the criminal case is the same money which Mrs. Jonathan is claiming belongs to her as the sole signatory to the accounts of the convicted companies.
She however denied ownership of the companies.
At the resumed hearing of the matter on Monday, Justice Idris granted an application by the former first lady seeking an extension of time within which to reply to the EFCC’s statement of defence.
The judge subsequently fixed January 19, 2018 as the date for commencement of trial.
While ordering the refiling of the suit, Justice Idris had held that it will not be proper for the plaintiff to commence the suit by way of originating summons since issues surrounding the ownership of the money are largely contentious among parties.
The judge, while noting that oral evidences will be needed to resolve the issue in contention, ordered parties to file their pleadings in line with the Federal High Court rules 2009 for trial to commence in the matter.
“The EFCC has argued that the matter was not properly commenced by originating summons on the premise that the facts were in total dispute and as such, ought to come by writ.
“The plaintiff, in her response, argued that the affidavit evidence showed largely that there were no disputed facts of substance among the parties and that if the court is not sure of this, it should order pleadings so that a full trial can be embarked upon.
“It is now settled law that originating process is the ideal process to commence a suit where there is no dispute. The issue in contest is on the ownership of the fund in the account of the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants.
“In respect of this issue, the contention appears divided and facts are in substantial dispute. In the light of the above, it cannot be rightly contended that there are no disputed facts and substance as to the ownership of the said fund.
“The issues of facts raised by the defendants are not spurious or irrelevant. The affidavit of the plaintiff is also not conjectural. In my view, the facts are contentious and oral evidence need to be led by the parties.
“In the light of the above facts, this case is generally not suitable for an originating summon procedure. In the circumstances, the court hereby orders that the parties herein file pleadings in accordance with the Federal High Court rules 2009 and trial shall then proceed accordingly”, the judge held.
