The Court of Appeal in Port Harcourt has delivered a significant judgment on the limits of interim freezing orders, bringing to an end the 15-month restriction placed on 124 bank accounts belonging to businesswoman Aisha Achimugu and companies associated with her.
In a unanimous decision, a three-member panel of the appellate court ruled that allowing an ex parte freezing order to remain in force for more than 15 months amounted to an abuse of court process, reaffirming that such orders are intended only as temporary measures pending the hearing of substantive applications.
The judgment, delivered by Justices Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo, Ishaq Mohammed Sani, and Eleojo Enenche, overturned the interim freezing order granted by the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt on April 10, 2025, in response to an application by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The dispute originated from the EFCC’s investigation into bank accounts linked to Achimugu, the founder of Oceangate Engineering Oil & Gas Ltd. Acting on the commission’s ex parte application, the Federal High Court froze 124 accounts and prohibited financial institutions from processing outward transactions pending further proceedings.
Achimugu, however, challenged the order, arguing that its prolonged enforcement had become oppressive and constituted an abuse of judicial process. Her legal team also accused the EFCC of violating the court’s own order by directing SunTrust Bank to transfer ₦1.8 billion from one of the affected accounts into the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)/EFCC recovery account while the freezing order was still in force.
The Federal High Court had earlier agreed with that position, ruling on August 27, 2025, that the transfer was unlawful and ordering the immediate return of the funds. The EFCC appealed, contending that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to deliver its judgment during the judiciary’s annual vacation, denied the commission fair hearing, and granted reliefs that were not specifically sought.
The Court of Appeal rejected those arguments.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Sirajo held that delivering a reserved judgment during the court’s annual vacation does not amount to conducting general legal business and does not invalidate the proceedings. The court further found that both parties had been afforded adequate opportunity to present additional affidavit evidence on the disputed transfer, dismissing the EFCC’s allegation of a denial of fair hearing.
However, the appellate court took a different position on the disputed ₦1.8 billion.
After reviewing the evidence, the court found that the money originated from a fixed deposit account that was not among the accounts covered by the April 10, 2025 freezing order. The judges observed that the accounts specifically frozen included current accounts belonging to Drive.FGC.Net and Felak Concepts Ltd with balances of about ₦50.5 million and ₦16.2 million, while the disputed ₦1.8 billion was held in a separate fixed deposit account alongside ₦7.79 billion in internal ledger accounts.
The court held that the trial judge failed to establish any evidential link showing how the funds transferred to the EFCC recovery account originated from the accounts covered by the freezing order. Consequently, it set aside the lower court’s directive ordering the reversal of the ₦1.8 billion.
Even so, the appellate court was careful to clarify that its ruling should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the EFCC’s decision to direct the transfer of the funds.
Perhaps the most far-reaching aspect of the judgment was the appellate court’s position on the lifespan of interim freezing orders. The court emphasized that ex parte preservation orders are exceptional remedies designed to temporarily secure assets while parties are heard on notice. Allowing such orders to remain in force for over 15 months, it held, defeats their purpose and undermines the principles of fair judicial process.
On that basis, the Court of Appeal discharged and vacated in its entirety the interim freezing order issued against Achimugu and the corporate entities linked to her.
The ruling is expected to resonate beyond the immediate dispute, as it reinforces judicial safeguards governing the use of interim asset-freezing orders in financial crime investigations. While anti-corruption agencies retain broad powers to preserve assets under investigation, the judgment underscores that such powers remain subject to constitutional guarantees of due process and judicial oversight.
For legal practitioners and financial regulators alike, the decision serves as an important reminder that temporary preservation orders cannot become indefinite restrictions without timely judicial review. It also highlights the courts’ role in balancing the state’s responsibility to investigate alleged financial crimes with the protection of individual and corporate rights under the law.
