NEWS RELEASE

FEDERAL HIGH COURT AWARDS ₦15 MILLION IN FAVOUR OF ALHAJI SANUSI BADAMASI NABABA AGAINST KYC AND POLICE OVER CIVIL DISPUTE; COURT DISOWNS PURPORTED ARREST WARRANT

The Federal High Court, Abuja, has awarded a total of ₦15 million in damages to businessman, Alhaji Sanusi Badamasi Nababa, after finding that KYC Inter Project Limited, its Managing Director, Mr. Michael Ayuba Auta, and officers of the Nigeria Police Force violated his constitutional rights in connection with a disputed land transaction in Guzape, Abuja.

The Court specifically awarded ₦10 million against KYC Inter Project Limited and Mr. Michael Ayuba Auta, while a further ₦5 million was awarded against the Nigeria Police Force officials involved in the matter, including DCP Akin Fakorede, who was the Head of the IGP Monitoring Unit at the time.

In a separate development, the Federal High Court subsequently clarified that a purported Warrant of Arrest allegedly issued against Nababa did not emanate from the Court, raising further questions regarding the origin and circulation of the document.

The Federal High Court Judgment: Court Rules that Civil Disputes Cannot Be Criminalised

The case of Sanusi Badamasi Nababa v. KYC Inter Project Limited, Mr. Micheal Ayuba Auta, DCP Akin Fakorede (erstwhile Head, IGP Monitoring Unit), CSP Magaji K. Mohammed, and the Inspector-General of Police arose from a Memorandum of Understanding executed between Cozmo Park Consortium Limited and KYC Inter Project Limited concerning the sale of plots of land.

According to the Applicant, the parties’ contractual relationship had already become the subject of court proceedings and arbitral proceedings following disputes regarding the implementation of the agreement. Notwithstanding the pendency of those proceedings, the Applicant alleged that KYC Inter Project Limited and its Managing Director, Mr. Michael Ayuba Auta enlisted the assistance of the Police, including DCP Akin Fakorede, CSP Magaji K. Mohammed and their officers, to intimidate, harass, and threaten him in connection with matters arising from the contractual dispute.

The Applicant commenced a fundamental rights enforcement action before the Federal High Court, contending that repeated invitations, threats of arrest, coercion, intimidation, and his detention in relation to a matter that was already the subject of judicial and arbitral proceedings constituted violations of his constitutional rights to dignity of the human person, personal liberty, and freedom of movement.

KYC Inter Project Limited, Mr. Michael Ayuba Auta, DCP Akin Fakorede, CSP Magaji K. Mohammed and the Inspector General of Police were all represented by Chief Henry Akunebu, SAN, who challenged the Applicant’s claims and argued, among other things, that the Applicant had failed to establish any infringement of his fundamental rights.

The Applicant’s legal team, led in court by Chief Joe-Kyari Gadzama, SAN, argued that the dispute was purely civil in nature and that the intervention of law enforcement authorities amounted to an attempt to employ criminal processes as a tool for enforcing contractual obligations.

In a judgment delivered on March 11, 2026, the Federal High Court upheld the Applicant’s case.

The Court dismissed the Respondents’ objection that the Applicant’s evidence amounted to hearsay. The Court held that the affidavit evidence before it complied with the applicable rules governing fundamental rights proceedings and was admissible.

The Court attached considerable weight to documentary evidence showing that the Applicant had been invited by officers of the Nigeria Police Force in relation to matters arising from the contractual dispute and found that the exhibits before it demonstrated that the dispute was already the subject of pending judicial and arbitral proceedings, rendering police involvement unwarranted in the circumstances.

In reaching its decision, the Court held that the actions of the Respondents violated the Applicant’s constitutionally guaranteed rights to dignity of the human person, personal liberty, and freedom of movement.

The Court further held that the use of police machinery to exert pressure on a party in a contractual dispute was inconsistent with established legal principles and constitutional safeguards.

Consequently, the Court granted a perpetual injunction restraining the Respondents, their agents, privies, assigns, or anyone acting on their behalf from further intimidating, harassing, threatening, arresting, or detaining the Applicant in relation to the subject matter of the dispute.

The Court also awarded damages against the Respondents. The Court ordered KYC Inter Project Limited and its Managing Director, Mr. Michael Ayuba Auta, to jointly and severally pay ₦10 million in damages for instigating the violation of Alhaji Nababa’s constitutional rights. The Court further ordered DCP Akin Fakorede, CSP Magaji K. Mohammed and the Inspector-General of Police to jointly and severally pay ₦5 million for their role in the violation of the Applicant’s rights.

Federal High Court Officially Disowns Purported Warrant Of Arrest

Following the judgment and amid continuing concerns surrounding the dispute, a separate issue arose regarding a purported Warrant of Arrest allegedly issued against Alhaji Sanusi Badamasi Nababa.

Upon receiving information regarding the existence and circulation of the purported judicial process, J-K Gadzama LLP undertook verification efforts and subsequently petitioned the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, requesting an investigation into the authenticity of the document.

The petition outlined findings suggesting that the purported warrant did not correspond with the court records associated with the charge number referenced on the document. The firm further requested that the Court investigate the circumstances surrounding the procurement and circulation of the purported process.

By an official response dated June 11, 2026 and issued on the directive of the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, the Court clarified that the purported Warrant of Arrest did not emanate from the Federal High Court in the manner represented.

The Court further stated that the charge number and parties reflected in the purported warrant did not correlate with the information contained in the Court’s records. The response also clarified that the purported warrant did not emanate from any of the judicial officers identified during the course of the inquiry.

The Federal High Court’s response has reinforced concerns regarding the authenticity of the purported judicial process, and has prompted further steps aimed at securing a comprehensive investigation into the origin, procurement, and circulation of the document.

(C) CITY LAWYER Magazine. All rights reserved. To join our Channel, click here. Click here to join our WhatsApp chatroom. Contact us at citylawyermag@gmail.com or 081-3838-0083.