Connect with us

News and Report

MONUMENTAL FRAUD: COURT ORDERS UNION BANK TO PAY BILLIONS TO LATE OGUNDE’S ESTATE

Published

on

FULL DETAILS OF HOW THE BANK FRAUDULENTLY SOLD DESEASED CUSTOMERS PROPERTY AND DISOBEYED COURT ORDER TO PRODUCE CUSTOMER’S BANK STATEMENT

 

 

Justice Ibironke Harrison of a Lagos High Court in Tafawa Balewa Square has held that Union Bank perpetrated monumental fraud in the selling of a property owned by the late Otunba Adedoyin Olayide Ogunde, to offset a loan debt.

In the judgement delivered after 25 years of legal tussle, Justice Harrison found out that the sale of late Ogunde’s property situated at old Ikoyi, Lagos, by Union Bank to offset a loan facility by the deceased was conducted in bad faith and at a significantly undervalued price.

The judge found out that the property worth N142 million was ridiculously sold by Union bank at N30 million.

According to Justice Harrison, the mere fact that Ogunde defaulted in repaying the loan was no valid excuse for the bank to fling his property at ridiculous rates simply for the purpose of realising the debt owed; and doing so at a price that is so low is evidence of fraud.

“The only obligation incumbent on a mortgagee under a power of sale of his mortgage is that he should act in good faith. The court will always be on the lookout that the mortgagee acts bonafide and observes reasonable precautions to obtain not the best price, but a proper price.

“By the sale of Plot 6A, the bank had fully realised its money and had some balance to remit to the family. Without remitting the balance, it went ahead to sell the rest of the buildings.

“By going against what it had told Ogunde’s personal representatives on the partition of the property, the Bank’s action smacks of fraud, collusion and definitely does not show good faith.

“Union Bank further failed accountability principles when it withheld vital documents, including the deceased’s statement of account, from the court, showing that those documents, if produced, could have impacted negatively on the bank”, the judge ruled.

In her judgement, Justice Harrison held that Union Bank failed to act in good faith in discharging its duties as a trustee for the deceased’s estate, as the sale of the property was conducted privately rather than by auction as instructed.

Justice Harrison noted that the property, comprising nine luxurious flats and additional plots, was sold for N30 million by the bank has fully covered the deceased’s outstanding debt of over N14 million.

“Further sales of additional plots for N30 million each were also undervalued. There was also lack of transparency regarding the balance utilization after settling the debt, suggesting fraud and collusion. While the sales could not be overturned due to insufficient direct evidence of collusion by buyers, the claimants were entitled to damages”, the judge further held.

Consequently, Justice Harrison ordered the bank to pay N112 million to the children of the deceased. The court also ordered interest payment on the money from 1998 until the judgment date at the prevailing Central Bank of Nigeria rate, and 10 per cent per annum from the judgment date until full payment.

Going by this court’s directive, the bank is liable to pay more than N10.5 billion as at 2024. .

The claimants in the suit marked LD/2624/1999 are the children of the deceased, while Olushola Ogunde, Olubunmi Ashiru, Kehinde Ogunde, Olayinka Madden (executor of Ogunde’s estate), the Probate Registrar of the Lagos High Court, and Union Bank of Nigeria were joined as co-defendants as 1st to 6th defendants in the suit.

In the suit, the Ogunde family contended that the sale and the processes relied on by the bank to dispose of their benefactor’s property was characterised by fraud and collusion.

The family further argued that the assets were of a higher value than what the bank placed on it, and that there was a collusion between the bank and the purchasers.

Union Bank opposed an amendment to the claimants’ statement, arguing it was statute-barred. However, in May 2017, Justice Morenike Obadina dismissed this objection, allowing the amendment.

In the suit, the claimants are seeking among others, a declaration that granting of Probate by the 5th defendant of the last Will and Testament of Otunba Adedoyin Olayide Ogunde (deceased) dated 2nd August, 1995 on the 17th of November, 1997 to the 1st to 4th defendants as executors is wrongful, null and void, the same being inconsistent with the provisions and intendment of the Will as made by the Testator.

They were also seeking an order of injunction restraining the 6th defendant, its servants, agents, privies, assigns or any other person acting for it from disbursing, dissipating or otherwise part with the possession of the balance due to the Estate of Otunba Adedoyin Olayide Ogunde (deceased) on the sale of 6, Moore Road, Ikoyi, Lagos, pursuant to the legal mortgage in that respect to any person until the final determination of this suit.

News and Report

Absence Of Oba Otudeko, Bisi Onasanya, Others Stalls Arraignment Over N12.3Billion Fraud As Otudeko’s Lawyer Protests In Court

Published

on

By

The counsel for Oba Otudeko, Chairman of Honeywell Group, who is facing charges of a N12.3 billion fraud, appeared before a Federal High Court in Lagos on Monday to protest the charge.

Mr. Bode Olanipekun (SAN) informed the court that he was protesting because the charge had not been served on Otudeko or the two other individuals charged alongside him, the News Agency of Nigeria reports.

Olanipekun informed the court that, despite not being served with the charge, the defendants were shocked to learn about the planned arraignment through the media when the story broke last Thursday.

The 13-count charge was filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against Oba Otudeko, former Managing Director of FirstBank Plc. Olabisi Onasanya, and former Honeywell board member Soji Akintayo.

Olanipekun is the counsel for the three defendants.

They were charged alongside the company, Anchorage Leisure Ltd.

 

The EFCC alleges that the defendants obtained the sum under false pretenses.

 

According to the EFCC, the four committed the fraud in tranches of N5.2billion, N6.2billion, N6.150billion, N1.5billion and N500million, between 2013 and 2014 in Lagos.

 

The 13-count charge, filed by EFCC counsel, Bilikisu Buhari, on January 16, 2025, further claimed that the defendants used forged documents to deceive the bank.

Specifically, count 1 accused the defendants of conspiring “to obtain the sum of N12.3Billion from First Bank Limited on the pretence that the said sum represented credit facilities applied for by V-TECH DYNAMIC LINKS LIMITED and Stallion Nigeria Limited, which representation you know to be false.”

 

In Count 2, it was alleged that the defendants, on or about 26th day of November, 2013 in Lagos, “obtained the sum of N5.2 billion from First Bank Limited on the pretence that the said sum represented credit facilities applied for by V TECH DYNAMIC LINKS LIMITED which representation you know to be false.”

 

The 3rd count alleged that the defendants, between 2013 and 2014 in Lagos, obtained N6.2billion from First Bank Limited on the pretence that the said sum represented credit facilities applied for and disbursed to Stallion Nigeria Limited, which representation you know to be false.”

 

In the 4th count, they were accused of conspiring to spend the N6.15billion, out of the monies.

According to the Commission, the offences contravened Section 8(a) of Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006 and was punishable under Section 1(3) of the same Act.

Counts 5 reads: “That you, Chief Oba Otudeko, Stephen Olabisi Onasanya, Soji Akintayo and Anchorage Leisure Limited on or about 11th day of December, 2013 in Lagos, procured Honeywell Flour Mills Plc to retain the sum of N1.5 billion, which sum you reasonably ought to have known forms part of proceeds of your unlawful activities to wit: Obtaining by False Pretense and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 18(c), 15 (2) (d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.”

Meanwhile, Otudeko had reportedly fled Nigeria ahead of his scheduled arraignment on fraud charges.

 

According to TheCable Newspaper, Otudeko’s exit from the country is linked to the mounting legal pressures and financial disputes he is facing.

The newspaper reported that the businessman left the country via one of the land borders.

Continue Reading

News and Report

Loan controversy: Bisi Onasanya’s lawyer condemns media trial….Judge adjourns case to February 13

Published

on

By

In line with his resolve to defend himself and clear his name, Dr. Bisi Onasanya through his lawyer, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, SAN, at a session at the Federal High Court Lagos on Monday, January 20, 2025, demanded the service of proof of evidence and summons.

Onasanya, a chartered accountant and a former Group Managing Director of First Bank is defending himself against a controversial loan that allegedly occurred at First Bank 12 years ago. The retired banker is refuting the allegations alongside three others namely former Chairman of the bank, Chief Oba Otudeko, a former board member of Honeywell, Soji Akintayo, and a firm, Anchorage Leisure Ltd.

At a hearing at the Federal High Court in Lagos on Monday, Fusika condemned the media trial his client had been subjected to, saying he was not formally invited by the EFCC or served a notice of the charge.

He expressed surprise at seeing news stories in major newspapers linking Dr Onasanya to a trial on loan controversy during his time as First Bank Group Managing Director without prior notification.

“My Lord, it is concerning that my client has been unduly exposed to media trial without being formally served. This is a procedural anomaly that undermines his right to a fair hearing and personal dignity,” Olumide-Fusika said.

The prosecuting counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, denied any involvement by the EFCC in the media coverage of the case.

He stated that the commission had not issued a press statement and suggested that journalists may have obtained information through other means.

“My Lord, we disassociate ourselves from any media reports,” Oyedepo said.

The EFCC also applied for an ex parte motion to issue a bench warrant for the defenders’ arrest and sought permission to serve them through substituted means, alleging they had evaded service.

Olumide-Fusika opposed the motion, arguing that his client had always been available and had not evaded service. Demonstrating his determination to clear his name, the senior lawyer prayed to the court to have the EFCC serve the charge and the proof of evidence in the open court.

“This application is unwarranted and speculative. My client has neither avoided service nor absented himself from this matter. The claims of the prosecution are baseless. Since I am here and my client is ready to go ahead with this case, I ask to be served the charge and the proof of evidence here in the court,” Olumide-Fusika argued.

Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke, who presided over the case, dismissed the EFCC’s motion for substituted service on Onasanya since he has accepted to be served in the open court.

The judge consequently ordered that the EFCC serve Olumide-Fusika the charge and proof of evidence in open court.

The EFCC complied with the directive, and Olumide-Fusika who confirmed the receipt of the document extracted a confirmation from the prosecution counsel that the proof of evidence submitted is exhaustive and there wouldn’t be an addendum. The defence counsel said EFCC’s confirmation should be on record, insisting that his client was ready to defend himself and clear his name.

Justice Aneke adjourned the case to February 13, 2025.

It will be recalled that Onasanya, through his Communication Advisor, Mr Michael Osunnuyi, had earlier dismissed allegations, describing the claims as baseless and an attempt to tarnish Onasanya’s stellar reputation for professionalism, integrity and humaneness.

Continue Reading

News and Report

Abuja-Lagos Super Highway Project faces threat as two consortiums engage in battle for FG’s nod

Published

on

By

AEC Unity Network Limited, the officially recognised concessionaire for the Abuja-Lagos Super Highway and High-Speed Train projects, has denied any association with an entity known as AEC-Geofocus Consortium (Geofocus).

AEC Unity Network clarified that Geofocus has no role in the planning, financing, construction, or operation of the 470-kilometer superhighway and high-speed rail projects, which are part of President Bola Tinubu’s Renewed Hope agenda to boost national infrastructure.

In a statement released on Sunday, the company emphasised that it is the sole concessionaire authorized by the Federal Government of Nigeria, having received approvals from the Federal Ministry of Works, the Federal Ministry of Finance, and the Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission (ICRC).

Barrister Ayodeji Ademola, legal consultant for AEC Unity Network, said in the statement that AEC-Geofocus has no basis whatsoever to make any claim in relation to the Super Highway project, having not been part of its conception from the onset.

In the statement, AEC Unity Network reaffirmed that it is the sole concessionaire authorised by the Federal Government of Nigeria to design, finance, construct, operate, and maintain the 470-kilometer superhighway and high-speed rail linking Abuja and Lagos.

According to the statement, the company’s approvals are from the Federal Ministry of Works, the Federal Ministry of Finance, and the Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission (ICRC).

The reaction by the AEC Unity Network may have been informed by media publications credited to one Engineer Mutiu Yinka Idris, who asserted that AEC-Geofocus was in charge of the project for the federal government.

Idris, who claimed to be Director of Operations for AEC-Geofocus, had in the publication described the company as a consortium of engineers, planners, and investors that had successfully attracted $16 billion from Middle Eastern investors, with additional interest from European financial institutions and the World Bank.

He had also claimed that the financial framework was designed to minimize government expenditure, safeguard public funds, and prevent cost overruns through an efficient risk-sharing mechanism.

Idris had assured stakeholders of a grand project flag-off before February 2025, reiterating AEC-Geofocus’ commitment to delivering world-class infrastructure.

“The $16 billion project will be led by AEC-Geofocus, a consortium of engineers, planners, and investors, and plans have been concluded to commence it by February this year, 2025,” Idris had asserted.

He said that the Lagos-Abuja corridor, spanning approximately 500 kilometers, will connect Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Kwara, Kogi, and Niger states before reaching Abuja, under a design, Build, Finance, Operate, and Maintain (DBFOM) model.

But in its sharp reaction, AEC Unity Network expressed surprise at the emergence of AEC-Geofocus out of the blue to make claims on a project it was never part of.

Part of the statement read: “We emphatically state that AEC Unity Network Limited has no relationship whatsoever with AEC-Geofocus Consortium or Geofocus. Any claims made by Geofocus regarding involvement in the projects are ‘spurious and false.’”

“We categorically state that AEC Unity Network Limited has no relationship whatsoever with Engineer Mutiu Yinka Idris or Geofocus.”

“These fraudulent claims are completely at variance with our proposed infrastructure plans and are intended to confuse and defraud unsuspecting stakeholders,” the statement added.

The statement by Engineer Mutiu Yinka Idris, who claimed involvement in the projects on behalf of Geofocus in several media outlets and amplified on social media, is baseless and an attempt to mislead the public.

The company warned investors and the public to disregard any media advertisements or reports from Geofocus, describing them as unauthorized and misleading.

AEC Unity Network stated that its project is still in the planning stages, with no concurrent developments on the same corridor by any other entity.

To prevent confusion and potential fraud, AEC Unity Network urged local and foreign investors to verify information only through its official channels and avoid engaging with Geofocus on matters relating to the Abuja-Lagos Super Highway and High-Speed Train projects.

This infrastructure initiative, which includes a direct expressway and rail connection between Abuja and Lagos, is expected to enhance transportation efficiency and foster economic growth.

AEC Unity Network reiterated its commitment to transparency and professionalism, urging the public to engage only through its official channels for accurate information about the projects.

Continue Reading

Trending