Alternatively, they ask for an order to preserve the subject property and maintain the status quo until the appeal is decided.
The respondents in the appeal include the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Dr Kennedy Okonkwo, and 17 other individuals who benefited under the disputed forfeiture order.
According to the appellants, enforcing the judgment before the appeal hearing would render the appeal futile and irreparably breach their constitutional right to challenge the decision.
They argued that the Federal High Court’s order effectively transferred ownership of the 52 housing units to private individuals, contrary to Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act, which they contend only permits forfeited assets to vest in the Federal Government.
In their notice of appeal, the Appellants criticised Justice Alexander Owoeye’s July 14, 2026, ruling on several grounds, including an alleged lack of jurisdiction, an incorrect interpretation of the forfeiture provisions, and a denial of a fair hearing.
They asserted that there was no evidence before the trial court proving that the properties were proceeds of unlawful activities under the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act, the Money Laundering Act, or any other law enforceable by the EFCC.
They further asserted that the funds used to acquire and develop the Mercyville Estate were obtained from legitimate business transactions, including land and property sales, and other lawful commercial activities conducted in accordance with the Companies and Allied Matters Act and the corporate objectives of the companies involved.
Additionally, they expressed concern that the trial judge failed to consider their affidavit evidence and documentary exhibits, including a 2007 Deed of Assignment relating to the land’s acquisition.
A major complaint is that the trial court allegedly failed to rule on their objection that the dispute was essentially contractual and civil, governed by arbitration clauses.
They also raised that related suits involving the same parties and subject matter were already pending before another judge of the Federal High Court, which they argued amounted to an abuse of court process.
The appellants hence urged the Court of Appeal to set aside the final forfeiture order and grant a perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from taking possession of or dealing with the 52 residential units until the dispute is finally resolved.
They expressed concern over the swift action taken by EFCC officials to seize the estate, despite notices of appeal and a stay of execution filed and served on July 15, 2026, and the scheduled record settlement on July 24.
They also criticised the disturbance caused to residents, including orders to vacate by Monday, which they viewed as an abuse of authority by EFCC.
