The Federal High Court in Abuja has struck out a staggering £990 trillion lawsuit filed by Mr Tunde Omosebi against the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), declaring the case incoherent and legally baseless.
Justice James Omotosho, delivering judgment on Wednesday, ruled that the application, which sought redress for alleged violations of Omosebi’s fundamental rights, disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the CBN or any of the named defendants.
The judge issued a restraining order preventing Omosebi from filing any further legal action unless the process is either instituted by a qualified legal practitioner or accompanied by a medical certificate from the Chief Medical Officer of the National Hospital, Abuja, attesting to his mental fitness.
A similar order was issued to all Federal High Court registries, directing them not to accept any filing from Omosebi under the same conditions.
“This suit is hereby dismissed for not qualifying as a fundamental rights case, for lacking any reasonable cause of action against the defendants, and for being incomprehensible,” the judge said.
Omosebi, who described himself in court documents as “His Majesty”, a businessman and politician, and “Chairman of the Federal Executive Council and Prime Minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria”, filed the claim against CBN Governor Mr Olayemi Cardoso, listed as the first defendant. He also named the Chief Executive Officers of United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc, Guaranty Trust Bank (GTB) Plc, and Zenith Bank Plc as second to fourth defendants.
Additionally, Senate President Godswill Akpabio and Speaker of the House of Representatives Tajudeen Abbas were named as fifth and sixth defendants in the suit, registered as FHC/ABJ/CS/766/2024.
Filed on 29 January 2024 but dated 5 June 2024, Omosebi’s originating motion sought six orders, including one for the astronomical sum of £990 trillion as compensation for what he described as “traumatic torture” and violations under the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules, 2009.
He also demanded that the CBN be renamed the Reserve Bank of Nigeria, citing a non-existent Section 212 of the “Criminal Code of Nigeria Banks”. He further sought 10 percent interest on the claimed amount and N5 million in legal costs.
During the course of proceedings, Omosebi added further defendants without obtaining the court’s permission. In his application, he claimed his income derived from “projects and contracts” executed through his businesses and investment portfolios, as outlined in a “corporate resolution”.
He also accused the defendants of breaching what he called the “assembly industrial agreement” and of violating various constitutional provisions, including Sections 35, 43, and 45, as well as provisions of the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy.
Omosebi said he had opened both personal and corporate accounts with the second defendant four years ago to manage his finances in accordance with the Constitution.
Counsel to the CBN Governor, Ms Favour Maikano, raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because the claimant failed to establish any cause of action. She described the suit as lacking in substance and, therefore, incompetent.
The other defendants—including the CEOs of UBA, GTB, and Zenith Bank, as well as the Senate President and House Speaker—echoed that position, urging the court to dismiss the claim on similar grounds. They contended that Omosebi had no legal standing to bring the action.
In his ruling, Justice Omotosho said the court had identified two key issues: whether the suit was competent and whether it disclosed any valid cause of action.
“To determine if the claims fall under Chapter 4 of the Constitution, the court reviewed the reliefs sought and all associated filings,” the judge said. “The more the court examined the documents, the more confused it became as to what the claimant was actually seeking.”
He noted that the filings contained no specific allegations of financial misconduct by the banks and that there was no legal basis provided for converting the CBN into a “Reserve Bank” or the other banks into what Omosebi called “DRIG Bank”, a term the court could find no legal or institutional reference for.
“The court searched thoroughly for any legislation named ‘Criminal Code of Nigeria Banks’ and found nothing,” Omotosho said. “It is clear that these claims do not pertain to any breach of fundamental rights.”
The judge observed that a valid cause of action must present some legitimate legal questions for consideration, not simply academic arguments.
“Courts are not here for academic exercises, but for genuine, substantiated claims,” he stated. “If a cause of action is baseless, the court’s jurisdiction is immediately compromised.”
Justice Omotosho said there was no evidence that Omosebi had suffered any harm resulting from the CBN’s policies or that any of the defendants had misappropriated his funds.
“The entire case appears to be a product of the claimant’s imagination. His filings are incomprehensible and do not establish any connection to the defendants,” he concluded.
The court also found no proof that Omosebi actually held or was denied access to any accounts with the named banks.
Commenting further on the claimant’s conduct, the judge said the original suit listed seven defendants and six reliefs. But by 10 July 2024, Omosebi had added the Corporate Affairs Commission as the eighth defendant and increased the reliefs to nine—again without the court’s permission.
By 17 November 2024, he had filed another motion, this time listing 57 defendants, including all commercial airlines operating in Nigeria, and seeking 19 reliefs.
“The claimant appears intent on undermining court procedure through confusing and absurd amendments made without proper legal steps,” the judge remarked. “He is not in the mental condition expected of a rational individual.”
Justice Omotosho declared that the court is “a place of serious business” and will not be used to entertain “frivolous and incomprehensible” matters.
He also cited a separate suit filed by Omosebi against former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and others, in which similar erratic behaviour was displayed. In that case, Omosebi falsely listed the National Assembly Complex as Abubakar’s address, despite him never having served as a lawmaker.
“The claimant claimed to be both Chairman of the Federal Executive Council and Prime Minister of Nigeria. Yet it is common knowledge that the President is the Chairman of the Council, and Nigeria has no office of Prime Minister,” the judge pointed out.
He described Omosebi’s repeated conduct as a “typical somersault”, for which he had become “notorious”.
Justice Omotosho concluded by reaffirming the restriction against future filings by Omosebi unless supported by psychiatric clearance or submitted via a qualified lawyer.