A High Court Dismisses Fraud Case Against Zinox Technologies Boss And Others

Abuja Court Throws Out Fraud Allegations Against Tech Giant Boss

In a significant legal development, a High Court sitting in the Bwari Division of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, has officially dismissed a fraud case against Leo Stan Ekeh, the Chairman of Zinox Technologies, his wife Chioma Ekeh, and eleven others. This decision was handed down after the court determined that the allegations in Suit No CR/985/2024 were a gross misuse of judicial processes.

Delivering the ruling, Justice Akpan Okon Ebong left no room for ambiguity. He decisively stated, "I hereby dismiss it." This verdict brought a sense of finality to a case that had drawn considerable attention from both the tech and legal communities.

Femi Falana's Legal Gambit

According to reports from Naija News, the legal drama began in November 2024 when Femi Falana (SAN), acting on behalf of the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), initiated the case. Falana was authorized to act against Ekeh and the twelve other defendants. The defendants in this high-profile case included a mix of individuals and corporate entities such as Chris Ozims, Oyebode Folashade, Charles Adigwe, Obilo Onuoha, Agartha Ukoha, Anya Anya, Femi Dosumu, Nnenna Kalu, Admas Digital Technologies Limited, Technology Distributions Limited, and Zinox Technologies Limited.

Read also:

Top Casino Games With The Best Winning Odds

The case was rooted in a fiat granted to Falana, allowing him to refile and pursue a previous case, Charge No CR/827/2013. This earlier case involved the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Chris Ozims, the legal adviser for Zinox Technologies Limited, along with six others, at the behest of the nominal complainant, Joseph Benjamin.

Refiled Suit and Controversial Charges

In the refiled Suit No CR/985/2024, Falana represented Benjamin, the Chief Executive Officer of Citadel Oracle Concept Limited, a computer firm based in Ibadan. The charges were severe, accusing Ekeh, nine other individuals, and three companies of allegedly misappropriating N162,247,513.80. This amount was reportedly payment for a laptop supply contract at the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) Headquarters. The contract, supplied by Technology Distribution Ltd (now TD Africa) on behalf of Citadel in 2012, became the focal point of the legal battle.

However, Justice Akpan Ebong was critical of Falana's decision to increase the number of defendants from seven to thirteen. In a ruling delivered on March 20, 2025, the judge remarked, "The mere fact that a lawyer has been granted a fiat by the HAGF (Fagbemi) does not transform him into a Knight Errant, akin to Don Quixote, seeking out suspected criminals to prosecute."

Judge Ebong's Stance on Legal Authority

The judge clarified that the fiat granted to Falana was specific in its scope. It empowered him to refile and prosecute the case but explicitly excluded the power to amend, add to, or substitute the charge. He elaborated, "The Charge No. CR/827/2013 which he was asked to handle has just seven persons listed as defendants, whereas the instant charge filed by him has 13 defendants, almost double the number of persons he was authorised to prosecute."

Based on these observations, Justice Ebong concluded, "It is my conclusion based on the foregoing that this charge (No. FCT/HC/CR/985/2024, Federal Republic of Nigeria v Leo Stan Ekeh and 12 ORS) constitutes a gross abuse of court process and is liable to dismissal. I accordingly hereby dismiss it."

Concerns Over Persecution Tactics

Justice Ebong's ruling also highlighted a broader concern. He pointed out that none of the law enforcement agencies tasked with investigating the numerous petitions submitted by the nominal complainant had found any merit in the allegations against the defendants. This observation raised questions about the motivations behind the case and whether it was part of a sustained campaign to persecute the accused.

Read also:

Celebritythemed Slots A Fun Journey Through Pop Culture

With this ruling, the court has sent a strong message about the importance of adhering to legal procedures and respecting judicial authority. It also underscores the need for caution when wielding legal tools to pursue cases, ensuring that the process is not abused for personal or political gain.