The Supreme Court dismissed AMCON’s appeal against Suru Worldwide Ventures Nigeria Ltd and Mr. Edward Akinlade.
This decision followed a legal battle over a disputed debt of N24.6 billion, which had persisted for years.
On July 7, 2025, the apex court ruled that AMCON’s notice of appeal was incompetent and therefore struck it out.
Justice Uwani Aji delivered the ruling, with Justices Saulawa, Agim, Uwa, and Umar fully supporting the judgment.
Justice Aji clearly declared that AMCON withdrew its appeal notice after acknowledging its incompetence.
Consequently, the Supreme Court immediately terminated all related legal proceedings.
Earlier, AMCON had filed the appeal, but later admitted its flaws.
Therefore, Justice Aji formally struck it out, effectively closing the case.
This ruling confirms that only properly filed appeals will proceed in court. Ultimately, the decision reinforces strict adherence to legal standards.
This effectively concludes AMCON’s legal effort to pursue the debt claim against Suru Worldwide Ventures and its Managing Director.
Origins of the Legal Dispute
The case stems from a banker-customer dispute between Suru Worldwide Ventures and Oceanic Bank Plc (now Ecobank Plc).
Suru had alleged gross mismanagement of its account by the bank. In 2011, Suru initiated legal proceedings under Suit No. FHC/L/CS/450/2011 at the Federal High Court in Lagos against Ecobank and the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).
The company accused the bank of inconsistent debt restructuring practices and alleged “creative accounting.”
Suru Worldwide Ventures reported that the bank manipulated its initially credited account to its disadvantage, causing significant issues.
In 2012, the bank restructured the alleged debt to N8.3 billion; however, it unexpectedly increased to over N24.6 billion by 2013.
Despite denying new financial facilities, the company’s debt increased sharply within a year, raising serious shareholder concerns.
Furthermore, the CBN was later excluded as a party in the legal case, which complicated the dispute and slowed proceedings.
AMCON’s Involvement
In 2016, AMCON entered the dispute by claiming it had acquired the contested debt from Ecobank, thus initiating the case.
Subsequently, after being added as a co-defendant, AMCON filed a counterclaim, aiming to recover N24.2 billion from Suru Worldwide Ventures and Mr. Akinlade.
However, both the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal ruled against AMCON.
The trial court found AMCON’s counterclaim to be an abuse of court process, citing multiple suits filed by AMCON on the same subject matter and its failure to obtain declaratory reliefs in an earlier case (Suit No. FHC/L/CS/218/2014).
These rulings effectively extinguished AMCON’s right to pursue legal action on the matter.
Supreme Court Decision
Dissatisfied with the lower courts’ decisions, AMCON filed an appeal to the Supreme Court in July 2021.
However, during Monday’s proceedings, the apex court deemed AMCON’s notice of appeal incompetent.
The appeal was subsequently withdrawn and struck out.
The ruling marks the conclusion of AMCON’s attempts to recover the disputed debt through legal channels.
Implications
This judgment emphasizes the importance of procedural compliance in legal appeals and demonstrates the judiciary’s firm stance against abuse.
For Suru Worldwide Ventures and Mr. Akinlade, the ruling marks a major victory in their nearly ten-year struggle to contest the debt claim.
Currently, neither AMCON nor Suru Worldwide Ventures has released a public statement, leaving their official positions unconfirmed.
This case highlights the complexities involved in debt restructuring disputes and underscores the serious legal consequences for institutions and customers.