Court Orders Kidnap Kingpin, Evans to Refund €233,000 Ransom to Victim
Wale Igbintade
Justice Olukayode Ogunjobi of the Lagos high court, sitting at Tafawa Balewa Square (TBS) has ordered kidnap kingpin, Chukwudumeme Onwuamadike, popularly known as Evans, to refund the sum of €233,000 ransom he coercively collected from one of his victims, Chief Donatus Dunu.
The judge also ordered the convicted kidnapper to pay N50 million as general damages in favour of the claimant.
The claimant, a pharmacist was abducted on 14th day of February, 2017, for ransom and held hostage, before he escaped from captivity.
Upon his escape he alleged that the defendant collected the sum of €233,000 as ransom.
Consequently, the claimant, who is the CEO of Maydon Pharmaceutical Company filed Suit No: LD/5243GCM/2018 demanding the return of the sum of £223,000 he paid as ransom while in the custody of the kidnap kingpin.
The claimant also demanded the sum of N50 million as damages.
In his testimony before the court, the claimant, said he was abducted on 14th day of February, 2017, for ransom and held hostage, before he escaped from captivity.
Upon his escape he alleged that the defendant collected the sum of €233,000 as ransom.
The claimant added that the defendant also asked him to instruct his brothers, Anslem Dunu and Innocent Dunu to pay the ransom.
He stated that the sum of €233,000 was paid, but the defendant refused to release him. He eventually escaped from captivity.
He was not cross examined despite several adjournments for cross examination.
Also, the claimant’s brother, Anslem Dunu gave evidence on behalf of the claim and adopted his witness statement on oath sworn to on 16th May, 2022.
His evidence was that on February, 14, 2017, his brother, one Innocent Dunu informed him that the claimant was abducted.
The next day he spoke with the claimant on phone who instructed him to pay his abductors N100 million as ransom for his release.
He stated that the abductors later demanded for £1million. His relation, one Uchenna Okagwu, delivered the €233,000 to the abductors. He was not cross examined.
However, in his defence, the Defendant contended that the strength of the Claimant’s case is predicated majorly upon criminal trial against him and others in Suit No. 1D/5970C/2017.
Defendant also submitted that the only evidence before the court as to the payment of €233,000 and to whom if any was paid to was the evidence of Uchenna Okagwu, who allegedly delivered the money to the abductors.
He added that in the criminal trial in Suit No. 1D/5970C/2017, Okagwu testified that he dropped the said sum on the ground and fled and that he did not see anybody or delivered the money to anyone.
He argued that the evidence of Okagwu who delivered the said ransom to the abductors which was the only direct evidence that must pass the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
In his judgment, Justice Ogunjobi held that the Defendant gave inconsistent evidence and cannot be rewarded as a truthful witness.
Justice Ogunjobi held: “It a settled law that no witness who gives materially inconsistent evidence on oath is entitled to the honour of being accorded with any credibility and such does not deserve to be treated as a truthful witness.
“Aside adducing conflicting pieces of evidence on oath, I have watched the demeanor of the defendant in the witness box when giving evidence and came to the conclusion that the defendant is not a witness of truth.
“Consequently, the claimant is entitled to be paid or repaid and or recover from the defendant, the sum of €233,000 ransom coercively paid by the claimant to defendant when the defendant kidnapped the claimant in 2017, and held the claimant hostage for months.
“The sum of N50,000,000 is awarded as general damages in favour of the claimant against the defendant.”
