Court dismisses charge against contractor, ex-MTN staff over Yellow Estate

By : Yetunde Ayobami Ojo

Date: 30 November 2025 8:06pm WAT

Share :

Wooden justice gavel and block with brass

Wooden justice gavel and block with brass

Justice Ismaila Ijelu of a Lagos High Court, sitting in Ikeja, has dismissed the charge against a contractor, Mutairu Babatunde, and two former staff of MTN, Victor Akintunde and Gani Mustapha, alleged of conspiracy and obtaining money by false pretence.

The judge discharged and acquitted the defendants alongside their companies, Primavera Engineering and Construction Limited, and Mabo Dredging Limited, of the alleged ₦1 billion fraud. Aside from dismissing the charge against them, the court also ordered the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to release all their withheld assets and seized properties back to them. The judge’s order was sequel to the affidavit of fact filed by counsel representing the defendants, Mr Olalekan Ojo (SAN) and G. M. Oguntade (SAN), praying the court to discontinue the case after the nominal complainant, MTNN Employees Multipurpose Society Limited, and all the defendants resolved their matter in a civil suit.

The parties voluntarily executed a comprehensive settlement agreement dated August 25, 2025, after which the terms of settlement were filed in the civil suit on September 17, 2025, before Justice Kudirat Jose of the Commercial Division of a Lagos High Court sitting in Tapa, Lagos Island, who entered a consent judgment, thereby conclusively resolving the dispute. Ojo (SAN) informed the court that the nominal complainant, through its solicitors, wrote a formal letter dated August 29, 2025, to the EFCC, communicating the settlement and expressly requesting the discontinuance of the charge. “We have written to the commission, the EFCC, by letter dated October 23, 2025, and requested withdrawal of the prosecution in light of the consent judgment.”

The EFCC counsel, Mr Babatunde Sonoiki, confirmed receiving the affidavit and acknowledged that the Commission has been formally notified of the settlement and is awaiting internal directives. However, Justice Ijelu, in his ruling, held that, “The facts demonstrate that the engine of the prosecution—the nominal complainant—has completely settled the matter, has no subsisting complaint, and has formally requested the EFCC to discontinue the criminal proceedings. “The civil component has likewise been brought to a lawful end by consent judgment of the High Court. The complainant’s express withdrawal—affirmed by written correspondence and a subsisting consent judgment—extinguishes the basis for further prosecution. As recognised in FRN v. Ononye (supra) and PML Nig. Ltd. v. FRN (2017) LPELR 43480, maintaining a criminal charge in these circumstances would be an exercise in futility. “Accordingly, the court finds that there is no subsisting complaint, no outstanding dispute, and no legal foundation for continuing Charge No. ID/355/2013. The charge is hereby dismissed, and the defendants are acquitted.”

The court further ordered that the passports of the 1st and 2nd defendants, which were deposited with the Registrar of this Court as part of their bail conditions in Charge No. ID/355C/2013, be released to them forthwith. “It is further ordered that the respondent, acting through the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), shall immediately release to the 1st, 3rd and 4th applicants all movable and immovable properties listed in the Schedule of Assets. “It is hereby ordered that the EFCC, including its appointed receiver/manager, shall file and render a full, accurate and itemised account of all rents collected from the properties of the 1st and 3rd applicants from 2013 to date, and shall pay over all such collected rents to the 1st and 3rd applicants.

“It is further ordered that all rents collected in respect of the properties of the 1st, 3rd and 4th applicants be paid to them forthwith, after the accounting in order above. For the avoidance of doubt, these orders take effect unless there is shown to exist any valid and subsisting order of a court of coordinate jurisdiction restraining the release of any specific asset.”

Tags: