Court Orders Customs Service To Release Five Vehicles To Owners

A Federal High Court sitting in Abeokuta, Ogun State has ordered the Nigeria Customs Service to release five vehicles classified as “condemnation and forfeiture” back to their owners.

The vehicles included a Berliet Trailer Truck with registration No. AY 7203 RB (AX 7904 RB) Chasis No. MP 102180; Renault Trailer Truck with Registration No. BA 1600 RB (AB 6028 RB) Chasis No. RA03DIRN300172; Renault Trailer Truck with registration No. BN 7723 RB (AN 5660 RB) Chasis No. VF6RD04AIRE V00869; Renault Trailer Truck with registration No. BH 9263 RB (AR 3649 RB) Chasis No. CL 300334 and Renault Trailer Truck with registration No. AL 6130 RB (AB 3045 RB) Chasis No. VF6RA04AIREJ00931.

Justice Oluremi Oguntoyinbo gave the order while ruling on an application by Yoyo Olowokere Limited and four others through their lawyer, George Oyeniyi.

Other applicants in the matter are Mensar Sewlannou J. Joseph Joel, Akodegbe Basile, Koudjo Segbegnon and Ayivodji Sourou Pascal.

The Nigeria Customs Service Board is the sole respondent in the matter.

Justice Oguntoyinbo ordered “that the applicants’ vehicles listed as items 148, 366,367, 368 and 369 are hereby excluded from the list of the condemned items covered by the Exparte Order of June 25, 2020.

“That the vehicles are hereby released from the custody of the Ogun Custom Command, Idiroko, Ogun State to the applicants forthwith.”

Justice Oguntoyinbo held that the respondent failed to prove that the goods carried by the trucks were prohibited items or that the items were to be exported illegally.

The court also ordered in its January 18, 2022 ruling, a copy of which was obtained by The Nation, that “If the vehicles have been auctioned or sold, the respondent shall pay the full monetary value of the goods and trucks within a period 30 days.”

It emphasised that the respondent failed to prove that the goods carried by the trucks were prohibited items or that the items were to be exported illegally.

“I have carefully perused the affidavit of the respondent as well as the exhibits attached, I say that the applicants have adduced sufficient material in proof of their case. The respondent on their part have failed to do likewise” the court held.

The applicants, in their application, had approached the court and asked for an order setting aside and or varying the Order of Condemnation and Forfeiture made in relation to the applicants goods and vehicles listed as items 148, 366, 367, 368 and 369 in the schedule marked as Exhibit ‘D’ which formed part of the order made on June 25, 2020.

The applicants prayed the court for an order setting aside the order authorising the respondents to auction, allocate or sell the applicants goods and vehicles.

The applicants in addition urged court for an order for unconditional release of their vehicles.

They contended that the respondent obtained the Order of “Condemnation and Forfeiture” by misrepresentation and concealment of facts, without due process of law, the suit not properly constituted and consequently robbed the court of the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

The respondents in their opposing application, filed an eight paragraph counter affidavit on December 24, 2020, and attached a written address stating that the court was not bound by a ruling cited by the applicants.