CRIME & Punishment
Investment Scam: Business Man Remanded in Ikoyi Prison for Defrauding ‘Investors’ of N600m, $50,000
Funke Olaode
Making quick money has been around since time immemorial, with many people getting their hands burnt. The process usually begins when con men lure unsuspecting ‘investors’ into their tent by promising them quick returns on their investment within a space of short period. The early 2000s saw a lot of these wonder banks in Nigeria operating under different names, defrauding unsuspecting Nigerians. While the smart ones (investors) smiled at the bank, the majority lost their investments worth billions of naira.
Financial experts have warned that making money in investments doesn’t happen overnight. It is common knowledge or common sense that some people day trade and try to turn a quick profit, but day trading comes with additional risks. Most financial advisers say that one should invest only money one will not need for at least five years, while others also believe that one does not need to invest in launching a major business to reap the benefits of extra income. Leveraging technology to take on small jobs and tasks can help one to earn extra cash quickly.
But for many Nigerians, it is too sweet to believe when a 100 per cent increase is announced on an investment within a short period. Every day, they are falling into the hands of voodoo investors who defraud them of their hard-earned money.
On Monday, the Ikeja Division of the Lagos High Court presided over by Justice A.M. Lawal, the world witnessed another high-profile case involving a businessman, Ayodele Toyosi, and his investors.
Toyosi was arraigned over an alleged fraud of N600,150,000 and $50,000.00.
Decked in blue guinea brocade, the polished-looking Toyosi looked unruffled as Justice Lawal reeled out his offence under the law. Toyosi was arraigned with his two companies, Reaprite Global Limited and Agrorite Limited, on an 11-count charge by the Lagos command of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
He offences bordering on obtaining money by false pretences, stealing and retaining proceeds of a criminal conduct.
The anti-graft commission alleged that the defendant, Toyosi, with the intention to defraud, obtained the total sum of N600,150,000 and $50,000 from different people on a false representation that the money was meant for an interest-yielding investment in an agricultural export at the interest rate of 21% return on investment for six months, whereas the money was expended for his personal use.
His offences are contrary to section 1(1)(a) and punishable under section 1(3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006 and stealing, contrary to Sections 278(1)(b)(f) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State 2011.
EFCC counsel, Mr G.C Akaogu, told the court that the defendant had, sometime on July 13, 2023, obtained $50,000 by false pretence belonging to James O. Emadoye. Akaogu alleged that the defendant fraudulently obtained N600,150,000 from several other persons.
The defendant pleaded not guilty to all the charges. Akaogu, after that, urged the court to remand the defendant pending the commencement of trial.
However, the defendant’s counsel, Mr Olalekan Ojo (SAN), informed the court that he had filed and served the bail application to the prosecutor. The prosecutor said he needed to file his response. nJustice Lawal adjourned the case to August 21, 2024, for bail argument on ball application and ordered that the defendant be remanded at Ikoyi Correctional Facility.
Unlawfully Detention: Court Orders Police to Release or Charge Detained Engineer
Wale Igbintade
The Lagos Division of the Federal High Court has issued an order directing the police to either charge or immediately release a Nigerian Marine Engineer, Godswill Gold Gageche, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit filed against the police.
Gageche is in the custody of the commander and commissioner of police of Lagos State Special Squad Ikeja.
Justice Akintayo Aluko also issued an order directing the bailiff of the court to serve the order of immediate release of the applicant and all processes and further abridge the time to hear the application on the respondents jointly and severally and more, particularly the officers and men, staff, employees, agents and or privies of the commander.
Also listed as defendants in the suit are the inspector general of police, the police commissioner in Lagos, and Quest Shipping Limited.
The court’s order was sequel to a fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by Gageche through his lawyer, Nelson Otaji.
In an application accompanied by an affidavit sworn to by the applicant’s wife, Mrs. Patience Abasido Gageche, it was stated that on July 13, 2024, at about 2:00 p.m., she had visited him in the police cell where he was detained and that he informed her that the fourth respondent (Quest Shipping Limited), willfully and maliciously wrote a petition to the police and misrepresented the fact, and particularly stated that her husband vandalised its vessel, (Mt. Alexander J).
She stated that premised on the fourth respondent’s petition, the police commissioner in Lagos had, without notice or invitation to the applicant, sent officers, servants, and agents at 9:45 p.m. on July 12, 2024, and arrested Gageche, who had since been in detention.
She alleged that the commander maltreated the applicant and, more particularly, restrained his movement and denied him the right to reach his family members by seizing his cell phones.
Consequently, the applicant is seeking from the court an apology in three national newspapers for unlawful detention, an order of perpetual injunction restraining the first to third respondents, their officers, servants and or privies from further arresting, detaining and curtailing his freedom of movement and until the final determination of suit number FHC/L/CS/241/2023.
She also sought an order compelling the respondents jointly and severally, particularly the second to third respondents’ officers, staff employees, agents and privies, to produce the applicant before the court and admit him to bail.
Land Dispute: Appeal Court Dismisses Suit Against Lafarge Cement, Says Case Statute-Barred
Wale Igbintade
The Ibadan Division of the Court of Appeal has struck out a suit filed by some land owners of Ijagba, Sagamu and neighbouring villages against Lafarge Cement WAPCO Nigeria Plc over an expanse of land which the military government compulsorily acquired in the 1990s.
In its lead judgment delivered by Justice Yargata Byenchit Nimpar, the appellate court set aside the judgement of Justice E, 0. Osinuga of the Sagamu Division of the Ogun State High Court delivered on April 16, 2018, for lack of jurisdiction and competence.
Other panel members, Justice Gabriel Omoniyi Kolawole and Justice Binta Fatima Zubairy aligned themselves with the lead judgment.
The land owners, Alhaji G. K. Oladipo, Prince Lanre Oyemade, Pa, Obafemi Oredein, Pa. I Adeyemi, P. An Ifetayo Oredein, Prince J.B. Ogunleye, Chief D.O. Onayemi (suing for themselves and on behalf of all of the land owners of Ijagba, Sagamu and Neighbouring Villages), and the attorney general of Ogun State had in Suit No. HCS/62/ 2014 sought a declaration that the compulsory acquisition by the Ogun government of their land, approximately 1001.133 hectares lying and situated along Sagamu/Ikorodu Road in Sagamu, was null, void and of no effect.
The claimants also prayed the court for a declaration that the Ogun government’s transfer of all that land, approximately 1001.133 hectares, to Lafarge Cement WAPCO Nigeria Plc was null, void and of no effect.
In its decision, the lower court entered judgment in favour of the first to seventh respondents and awarded a cost of N5 million only against the appellant.
Dissatisfied with the decision, the appellant (Lafarge Cement), in its notice of appeal dated May 23, 2018, urged the court to allow the appeal and set aside the lower court’s judgment.
In her lead judgment, Justice Yargata Nimpar held that the appellant raised the issue of statute of limitation against the suit of the first to seventh respondents, to which the respondents contended that the court below was functus officio, having dismissed an earlier preliminary objection on the same issue.
She pointed out that “functus officio is a Latin word which literally means having performed his or her office,” stating that in the “context of the judge, it means that the duty or function that the judge was legally empowered to perform has been wholly performed, and the judge has no further authority or legal competence to revisit the matter.”
Nimpar added, “Surprisingly, the court below declined to consider the question of jurisdiction, contending that it was functus officio even when the fourth respondent specifically pleaded the same in paragraph 23 of the two defendants’ statement of defence. A court is bound to consider all issues particularly where it (sic) tends to raise a challenge to the jurisdiction.
“The first to seventh respondents did not deny the fact that the cause of action arose with the acquisition in 1997, and if the period allowed by the Limitation Law is 12 years and the suit was commenced in 2014, then it is obviously outside the 12 years period allowed for land matters. Any suit filed outside the limitation period is labelled statute-barred, and the implication is that it divests the court of jurisdiction and leaves the claim without a judicial remedy. The right of action is also worthless and an empty shell, which inures no benefit to the claimant.”
The judge also noted that the suit filed by the first to seventh respondents was statute barred and, therefore, the court below lacked the jurisdiction to entertain same, stressing that the consequence of it all “is that this court also lacks jurisdiction to determine the same.”
“The suit is hereby struck out for want of jurisdiction and competence,” the judge ruled.
On the cross-appeal, the court held that the respondents or cross-appellants “have enjoyed the compensation paid to them for the acquisition of land and are now turning round to seek for compensation in the guise that they were not privy to the agreement in the consent judgment which facilitated the payments of compensation to them.”
The judge, therefore, ruled, “The respondent/cross/appellants have come to equity with soiled hands, and they cannot drink from the fountain of justice. The cross-appeal is frivolous, gold-digging and time-wasting. I also dismiss same.”
