EFCC have charged Monan trading company and others including Mrs. Moji Yakubu for forgery of deed of assignment and the stealing of Oyetubo Joko Tade Estate Resources Limited’s land in Sango Tedo, Eti-Osa LG, Lagos State.
This is the culmination of a long drawn battle between the plot owners on one hand, and Monan trading company alongside some disgruntled family members (Omoniles) who allegedly aided the alleged forgery and resale of lands already sold and possessed by legitimate plot owners from Legal Partnership Consult, the authentic attorney to Oyetubo Joko Tade Estate Resouces Limited.
It has been a long walk to seek justice but we, plot owners, have faith that justice, equity and fairness will prevail. We have pursued legitimate route to address the matter and have also warned members of the public not to buy stolen lands from Monan.
In the course of such warnings, we encountered many attacks from the foot soldiers of Monan trading company, even on Nairaland. A respected lawyer on Nairaland is one of them.
Please see Punch report of the proceedings at the last hearing of the case. Case has been adjourned to 11th February for arraignment.

Updates to EFCC VS MONAN TRADING COY, MONAN GARDEN ESTATE SANGOTEDO.

EFCC executes an interim order of forfeiture.

More pictures

pics

I don't usually make comment on public issues on social platform but am move to say a few things on this Monan issue due to the stack ignorance and propaganda I see here.

As a journalist covering the purported arraignment of Moji Yakubu before Justice Ipaye of the Lagos High Court, Ikeja I believe I am conversant with the facts of this matter.

Without prejudiced to the matter before the court, I believe the EFCC is acting out someone's script. When this matter first came up, I and my colleagues widely reported the arraignment. On the return date however we became curious when the trial judge asked for clarification on the charge and surprisingly the EFCC lawyer could not offer simply explanation.

One of the charges indicated that the 10hectare land was stolen. This is strange in law because land is immovable. One can only trespass on a piece of land. Even when it was obvious that the commission in a haste to rush to court had made mistakes, shockingly the EFCC lawyer insisted that the land was stolen. The judge subsequently asked to be addressed so moto on the issue. This was widely reported. The issue is awaiting the ruling of the court.

Another pointer that there is more to this mater than meets the eye, was when the EFCC suspiciously placed a ban on Monan bank account without even obtaining any court order to do so. They just wrote the bank and it was done. But the court again blasted the commission for that action and lifted the ban on all Monan account.

The much awaited ruling on this matter has since suffered several adjournments due to the court's tight schedules.

My guess is that the EFCC knew that the ruling will never favor them so instead of seeking this temporary furfieture order before the trial court, they ran to another court and obtained this order.

We await to see what will happen when this issue is brought before Justice Ipaye. Am sure she will trash the commission again.

My guess is that the person who posted this forfieture pictures is as mischievous as the EFCC on this matter. I wont rule out invested interest here.

While not holding brief for anyone here, I believe the EFCC is playing out a script and the end will surely make an interesting piece.

Pay no mind to the EFCC and its gang of incompetent lawyers. They are only trying to gag the adverse party and expose their bias.

The lawyers for the complainants and his gang are a bunch of ignorant fellows. For a land to be capable of being stolen would engender a needless academic exercise which would go to the Supreme Court. When they come back after 35 years, they'll go back to the Lands Division and start another 35 year journey to determine ownership as land matters are purely civil. The instant court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

I suspect the OP and his gang are aware of this but they want to stampede Monan into arranging 'settlement' for them.

As for freezing the account of Monan by the bank, I blame the lawyers of Monan. That singular act was a breach of banker-customer relationship that should have been taken up with the bank at the Federal High Court.

Anyhow, this promises to be an interesting case. Lots of underhand tactics by the complainants.

@TheHeat and McJay, you are entitled to your opinions. I am not mischievous but only informing the public. Is there anything wrong in informing the interested public who have been reaching out to me in their numbers for updates . I do not see anything wrong in EFCC obtaining an interim order of forfeiture considered that Monan has been hurriedly selling the land in dispute in contravention of the directive by EFCC TO all parties to cease further sale or development on the land pending the conclusion of the matter. Whilst, I hold no brief for EFCC, it makes sense that EFCC strives to ensure no party to the disputed land continues to develop the land when the matter of ownership remains unresolved.

Since TheHeat is a journalist, I implore him to go on a fact- finding mission to EFCC rather than disparage the commission on Nairaland. The thing with most Nigerians is whenever, EFCC takes an action seemingly against our interest, we publicly lampoon the commission unfairly.

In this case, the commission is ensuring that justice is done and yet our ''learned lawyer, McJay and Journalist, TheHeat'' are castigating the commission.

I am surely not a lawyer and do not have an inkling on why the esteem Judge has continued to defer judgment on the matter, but I am certain that Justice will prevail.

Thanks

@olaoreawofele: please stop decieving people on this platform. I know your stake on that land and what you have volunteered to do. If you keep pushing this issue, I will let everything out here.

Why will people be calling you to ask about the latest information on a land you have no stake on. Maybe you have become and online informant. Please get a life.

So the EFCC took pictures of a property under temporary forfeiture order and sent them to you abi? Please stop decieving yourselves. You should have also posted those pictures you took while the EFCC was taking theirs. Am sure they informed you that they were coming, so you quickly got there with your camera.

Please get a life for yourselve and stop acting saint.

Am sure you alone know the people in the picture above which you never border to post. Since Nairaland is a faceless platform, am sure you wont tell.

Next time you come here to tarnish the reputation that hardworking individuals have built over the years, be sure that you will never success. As you chose to malign people for peanut, karma will also catch up with you.

@Bensiah,

‘’Deceive’’ is when you say or claim what is not true. I challenge you to tell everybody that the pictures are not true?
Did EFCC execute an interim order of forfeiture on Monan Garden Estate Sangotedo or not?
Hence, I humbly request you to clarify what you meant by deceiving people.
I suppose anybody can go there to take the pictures.
And, you need not get emotional, please. And insulting people on a public forum says a lot about moral standards. The worst thing, cursing people on a public forum.

@olaoreawofele: Your lies will soon be exposed. Just continue doing what you have been asked to do. I will soon expose you and your sponsors on this space.

@Bensah,

I wonder what stops you from doing the exposure right away. Empty threat.

@olaoreawofele: maybe you should tell the people in this forum what you were doing with the EFCC officials in this picture while they were executing their fraudulent order.

[img][/img]

@Bensiah,
Is that the exposé? What a disappointment.
Anyway, I see a desperate attempt to deflect issues from the crux of the matter which is the land being sold by Monan Garden Estate is a disputed land and Monan should stop selling it until the many litigations on the land are resolved.
Buyers Beware!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

olaoreawofele,

You have a history of attacking anybody who does not support you on this forum. Anyhow now that the case is before the court, it means that a judgment would be reached finally.

I read the articles and also this posting: https://www.nairaland.com/3239418/monan-petitions-efcc-boss-over#47739072

5 things appear to be out of place in your case against Monan.

1) Are you sure your lawyer did not scam you? To put it mildly, she has a reputation for land scams within the Lagos legal circles. Also, News articles say that a faction of the family which owns the land dragged your lawyer to EFCC and to court over allegations that your lawyer no longer had their power of attorney and that they never got the money you paid for the land. Well, if you say that Monan has been scamming unsuspecting victims, looking at the family's allegation, one would not be surprised if it was your lawyer that scammed unsuspecting victims like you. Did you pay in full? did you pay to the right representative of the family? did the money get to the family? Did the family issue you LASG government approved documents? The court will determine this.

2) EFCC broke the law with their action on Monan's account. In flagrant disregard of the EFCC Act, they froze Monan's business account without a court order. Following a ruling by Justice Ipaye, the illegal freeze was lifted. From Justice Ipaye's judgment, EFCC was rightly flayed by the judge on this matter. I imagine that EFCC shopped around but was not able to find a judge willing to issue the order because they could not make an adequate case to support freezing the account. Yet they went ahead to freeze the account. The court has now ruled on this.

3) The temporary forfeiture secured by EFCC seems to have been obtained in an unethical fashion. EFCC went to a different court (without notifying Monan, the family or Justice Ipaye's court) to obtain a temporary forfeiture on a case that was before Justice Ipaye's court. Even you will have to admit that there is something suspicious about this action. One can only suspect EFCC went to a judge whom they believed was biased in their favor not one who was after fairness or justice. Lets see how the trial responds to this action.

4) It does seem EFCC has no jurisdiction on the case - EFCC understands that its jurisdiction does not cover land ownership matters. Land ownership is a civil matter (not a financial fraud case) which falls under a civil court process. Because of this, EFCC had to allege that the "Land was stolen" in order to be able to pursue the case. This is why Justice Ipaye is asking EFCC to defend the allegation because the justice would like to understand how an immovable property like land can be stolen - the appropriate case would have been to say it was trespassed upon. Ofcourse EFCC knows that if it files a trespass case, it would be thrown out for lack of EFCC jurisdiction. The court will determine whether there is a case to be heard here.

5) From news articles, it was Monan's faction of the family that originally reported the matter to EFCC. Frankly if they were guilty, it is doubtful that they would take such action. How EFCC then turned around to arrest them, and then notified you of when EFCC was going to paint their temporary forfeiture on the Monan Estate walls (whilst not notifying Monan or the family) and you were able to get there on time to take pictures of EFCC, well it all sounds quite suspicious to the thinking mind.

Ofcourse you can attack me as you have done to everyone else. People resort to personal attacks when they do not have strong arguments. If they had strong arguments, they will respond to the matters that have been raised.

That fellow olaoreawofele should be wary because he may have fallen victim to real land scam. Am sure he is aware of the latest development on the matter where the judge again blasted EFCC for their desperation and for running to another court to obtain a forfeiture order in a matter that is before her. http://sunnewsonline.com/judge-blasts-efcc-lawyer-over-professional-misconduct/ . He should try and attend court on September 14 when the ruling will be delivered.

This man olaoreawofele should be covering his head in shame by now considering the fact that Monan has been cleared by the court of any wrong doing in the purchase of the 10 hectares of land at sangotedo.

For the avoidance of doubt this is a link to the story in vanguard: Vanguard: http://www.vanguardngr.com/2016/10/court-quashes-n80m-theft-charge-efcc-business-woman/

You can also check other major newspapers for the story.

@TheHeat,

I feel no shame because my position that the land is disputed was again emphasized by the Judge. Read in between the lines of the report you attached.
Sincerely, I do not intend to discuss the judgement in the open based on principle. Hence, I have no more to add.

It seems my earlier submission about the weakness of this case was flagged in the basis of the final court ruling ie "there has been at best a controversial sales of land by some persons who belong to the family that owns the land". Based on the provable facts of this case, frankly it seems Olaoreawofele was scammed by the party who she purchased from; that is where I think she should seek and would get justice.


http://guardian.ng/property/court-strikes-out-n80m-land-theft-suit-freezes-order-on-monan-estate/
A Lagos High Court sitting in Ikeja has struck out an N80m land theft charge filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against businesswoman, Mrs. Moji Yakubu and nine other persons.

EFCC charged Yakubu alongside her company, Monan Trading Company Limited and eight others for alleged stealing 10 hectares of land at Sagotedo, Lekki, which belongs to one Jokotade Estate Resources Limited.

Other defendants are Chief Muka Bajulaiye, Alhaja Ajimot Adisa, Alani Shirawu, Bajulaiye Hakeem, Akeem Giwa, Rachael Tokede, Adelaja Raji and Nuniru Mushafau.

They pleaded not guilty to the 11-count charge bordering on forgery and theft preferred against them and was granted bail.

The first defendant (Yakubu) counsel, Yemi Adeshina filed an application before the court seeking an order to quash the charges on the ground that they were incompetent.

Adeshina averred that the charge against his client was an abuse of court process, as his client has not committed any crime known to law.
In its response to the application, the EFCC insisted that there is sufficient evidence for the defendants to stand trial.

However, while ruling on the application, Justice Ipaye held the submissions of the defense and struck out the 11 count charges against all the defendants.

Justice Ipaye held that from the prove of evidence, the EFCC failed to established a prima facie case against all the defendants.

She stated that while it was not in dispute that the 1st defendant and her company purchased the said 10 hectares of land, the EFCC failed to provide prove that the transaction was an act of crime triable under the criminal law.

“The defense counsel had exhibited a petition against one Sade Ogundare challenging her power of attorney over a large parcel of land from which the 10 hectares of land was sold.

“ From the quick perusal of the proof of evidence filed before me by the EFCC, my deduction is that there has been at best a controversial sales of land by some persons who belong to the family that owns the land. This, I believe is an issue that falls within the jurisdiction of civil dispute.

“ From the proof of evidence before me, the prosecution has failed to prove that there is sufficient ground for the trial to continue. The application filed by the 1st and 2nd defendants succeeds and the amended information dated March 14, 2016 is hereby quashed.”

Earlier before ruling, Justice Ipaye had lambasted the EFCC prosecution team led by Babatunde Sonaiki for fraudulent obtaining a temporary forfeiture order from another Lagos High Court judge sealing the Monan Garden Estate development project, which was ongoing at the disputed 10 hectares land.

She therefore ordered that the freeze order placed on the Monan Trading bank account be lifted as it was done without following due process.

The judge wondered why the EFCC would secure such an order from another court while the matter is still before her, threatened to file a formal complaint against Mr. Sonaiki before the appropriate disciplinary authority.

This matter has taken another dimension. Look at a letter sent to the Lagos State Land Registry by Oyetubo Joko-Tade Estate Resources Ltd informing the agency that the power of attorney granted to Folashade Ogundare over their land has been revoked.

If this country where a better country those EFCC officials should be arrested and made to pay damages to Monan. Why did they abuse their office and freeze an account illegitimately? This is pure harassment and I don't know how a group of pple employed to protect the people can abuse their power like this. I suggest the Monan trading get in touch w all their clients and update them on this matter. This is quite unnerving

@Theheat
@MrMcJay
@Bensiah
@Vimo3

The general public is hereby notified EFCC won its' appeal against the judgement of the High Court. The Court of Appeal ruled that Monan and co-defendants have a criminal case to answer as charged by EFCC. Monan and Co. have appealed to the Supreme Court.

For the attention of the interested public .

http://lawpavilionplus.com/summary/judgments/?suitno=CA%2FL%2F1236%2F2016&from=sjIo5vQR3pKO6LiapkwdILmwaRWLVg6PxDbZTuBRZUA%3D

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA v. MOJI YAKUBU & ORS
(2018) LPELR-43930(CA)
________________________________________

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Monday, the 19th day of March, 2018
CA/L/1236/2016


Before Their Lordships
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEYJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ONYEKACHI AJA OTISIJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JOSEPH EYO EKANEMJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
________________________________________
Between
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA - Appellant(s)
AND
1. MOJI YAKUBU
2. MONAN TRADING COMPANY LTD
3. CHIEF MUKA BAJULAIYE
4. ALHAJA AJIMOT ASHAKU ADISA
5. ALANI YEKINI SHIRAWU
6. BAJULAIYE HAKEM
7. AKEEM GIWA
8. RACHAEL TOKEDE
9. ADELAJA NURENI RAJI
10. NUNIRU MUSHAFAU - Respondent(s)
________________________________________
Other Citations
; ;
________________________________________
Summary
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on the propriety or otherwise of quashing a charge.
FACTS:
This appeal is brought against the decision of the High court of  Lagos State delivered by O. Atinuke Ipaye, J. on October 6, 2016 in Charge No ID/2168C/2015 in which the learned trial Judge upheld preliminary objections of the 1st and 2nd Respondents and of the 3rd-10th Respondents, and quashed the charges brought against them, holding inter alia that no prima facie case of stealing had been made out on the proof of evidence to justify proceeding with the 11 count Amended Charge.

The facts leading to this appeal, in summary, are as follows:

A petition was written to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) by one Ms. Folashade Ogundare, a donee of a power of attorney from Oyefubo Jokotade Estate Resources Ltd. The said Company was the holder and owner of a Certificate of occupancy issued by Lagos State, dated 17/6/1996 and registered as No. 75 at page 75 in volume 1996AE at the Lands Registry Lagos. It was alleged in the said petition that ten hectares of land belonging to Oyetubo Jokotade Estate Resources Ltd that had been assigned by the company to other persons, was allegedly unlawfully assigned to the 1st and 2nd Respondents. Upon investigation, the Appellant, on 11/3/2016 by an Amended Information, preferred an 11-count charge against the Respondents, alleging conspiracy to steal, stealing land belonging to lawful assignees of Oyetubo Jokotade Estate Resources Ltd and forgery of payment receipts and other documents. Before the arraignment, the 1st and 2nd defendants, filed a preliminary objection in opposition to their arraignment on grounds of jurisdiction. The 3rd-10th Respondents also filed a preliminary objection. The preliminary objections variously sought to quash the charge on the ground that the prosecution had no fiat to prosecute, the matter was a civil matter, that stealing did not fall under the EFCC Act and that no prima facie case had been made out by the prosecution against the Respondents. The Appellant filed its counter affidavits in opposition to both preliminary objections. The contention of the 1st and 2nd Respondents was that they had purchased and paid for ten hectares of land from the principal members of the "Onibeju Royal Family" of Lagos who are the shareholders and the directors of Oyetubo Jokotade Estate Resources Ltd for the total sum of N150, 000,000.00 and that both parties duly executed a Deed of Assignment in this regard. The said company name was an acronym from Oyefubo, Banjoko and Okun-Ade families which make up the Onibeju Royal Family. The 3rd-10th Respondents were alleged to be principal members of the Onibeju Royal Family. The learned trial Judge, suo motu directed parties to address the Court as to whether land is capable of being stolen. Upon being addressed by respective Counsel on the matter as directed, and upon hearing arguments on the preliminary objections raised by the Respondents, the learned trial Judge upheld the Preliminary objections and quashed the 11 count Amended Charge.
Dissatisfied with the ruling of the lower Court, the Appellant lodged this appeal to the Court of Appeal.




ISSUES:
The appeal was determined on the Appellant's issues viz:

1. Whether having regard to the facts of this case as contained in the proof of evidence, the lower Court was right in striking out the amended information dated 11th day of March, 2016 on the grounds that a prima facie case has not been made out against the Respondents.
2. Whether at the stage of hearing the objection to the sufficiency of evidence attached to the proof of evidence, the lower Court was right in evaluating and believing the contents of the statement of the Defendants contained in the proof of evidence thereby arriving at the decision that there was no prima facie case made out against the Defendants.
3. Whether having regard to Section 260(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Lagos State 2011, an objection to the sufficiency of evidence attached to the proof of evidence ought to be raised before the close of the prosecution's case.


DECISION/HELD:
On the whole, the appeal succeeded in part. The Ruling delivered by the trial Court was set aside. It was further ordered that the Respondents be arraigned in respect of counts 3-11 of the Amended Charge.

Smartkidz:
If this country where a better country those EFCC officials should be arrested and made to pay damages to Monan. Why did they abuse their office and freeze an account illegitimately? This is pure harassment and I don't know how a group of pple employed to protect the people can abuse their power like this. I suggest the Monan trading get in touch w all their clients and update them on this matter. This is quite unnerving

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA v. MOJI YAKUBU & ORS
(2018) LPELR-43930(CA)
________________________________________

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Monday, the 19th day of March, 2018
CA/L/1236/2016


Before Their Lordships
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEYJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ONYEKACHI AJA OTISIJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JOSEPH EYO EKANEMJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
________________________________________
Between
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA - Appellant(s)
AND
1. MOJI YAKUBU
2. MONAN TRADING COMPANY LTD
3. CHIEF MUKA BAJULAIYE
4. ALHAJA AJIMOT ASHAKU ADISA
5. ALANI YEKINI SHIRAWU
6. BAJULAIYE HAKEM
7. AKEEM GIWA
8. RACHAEL TOKEDE
9. ADELAJA NURENI RAJI
10. NUNIRU MUSHAFAU - Respondent(s)
________________________________________
Other Citations
; ;
________________________________________
Summary
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on the propriety or otherwise of quashing a charge.
FACTS:
This appeal is brought against the decision of the High court of  Lagos State delivered by O. Atinuke Ipaye, J. on October 6, 2016 in Charge No ID/2168C/2015 in which the learned trial Judge upheld preliminary objections of the 1st and 2nd Respondents and of the 3rd-10th Respondents, and quashed the charges brought against them, holding inter alia that no prima facie case of stealing had been made out on the proof of evidence to justify proceeding with the 11 count Amended Charge.

The facts leading to this appeal, in summary, are as follows:

A petition was written to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) by one Ms. Folashade Ogundare, a donee of a power of attorney from Oyefubo Jokotade Estate Resources Ltd. The said Company was the holder and owner of a Certificate of occupancy issued by Lagos State, dated 17/6/1996 and registered as No. 75 at page 75 in volume 1996AE at the Lands Registry Lagos. It was alleged in the said petition that ten hectares of land belonging to Oyetubo Jokotade Estate Resources Ltd that had been assigned by the company to other persons, was allegedly unlawfully assigned to the 1st and 2nd Respondents. Upon investigation, the Appellant, on 11/3/2016 by an Amended Information, preferred an 11-count charge against the Respondents, alleging conspiracy to steal, stealing land belonging to lawful assignees of Oyetubo Jokotade Estate Resources Ltd and forgery of payment receipts and other documents. Before the arraignment, the 1st and 2nd defendants, filed a preliminary objection in opposition to their arraignment on grounds of jurisdiction. The 3rd-10th Respondents also filed a preliminary objection. The preliminary objections variously sought to quash the charge on the ground that the prosecution had no fiat to prosecute, the matter was a civil matter, that stealing did not fall under the EFCC Act and that no prima facie case had been made out by the prosecution against the Respondents. The Appellant filed its counter affidavits in opposition to both preliminary objections. The contention of the 1st and 2nd Respondents was that they had purchased and paid for ten hectares of land from the principal members of the "Onibeju Royal Family" of Lagos who are the shareholders and the directors of Oyetubo Jokotade Estate Resources Ltd for the total sum of N150, 000,000.00 and that both parties duly executed a Deed of Assignment in this regard. The said company name was an acronym from Oyefubo, Banjoko and Okun-Ade families which make up the Onibeju Royal Family. The 3rd-10th Respondents were alleged to be principal members of the Onibeju Royal Family. The learned trial Judge, suo motu directed parties to address the Court as to whether land is capable of being stolen. Upon being addressed by respective Counsel on the matter as directed, and upon hearing arguments on the preliminary objections raised by the Respondents, the learned trial Judge upheld the Preliminary objections and quashed the 11 count Amended Charge.
Dissatisfied with the ruling of the lower Court, the Appellant lodged this appeal to the Court of Appeal.




ISSUES:
The appeal was determined on the Appellant's issues viz:

1. Whether having regard to the facts of this case as contained in the proof of evidence, the lower Court was right in striking out the amended information dated 11th day of March, 2016 on the grounds that a prima facie case has not been made out against the Respondents.
2. Whether at the stage of hearing the objection to the sufficiency of evidence attached to the proof of evidence, the lower Court was right in evaluating and believing the contents of the statement of the Defendants contained in the proof of evidence thereby arriving at the decision that there was no prima facie case made out against the Defendants.
3. Whether having regard to Section 260(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Lagos State 2011, an objection to the sufficiency of evidence attached to the proof of evidence ought to be raised before the close of the prosecution's case.


DECISION/HELD:
On the whole, the appeal succeeded in part. The Ruling delivered by the trial Court was set aside. It was further ordered that the Respondents be arraigned in respect of counts 3-11 of the Amended Charge.