Legal Challenge by CitiTrust Financial Services Limited
CitiTrust Financial Services Limited, the parent company of Osun-partly owned LivingTrust Mortgage Bank, has taken its case to the Court of Appeal in Lagos. This move follows the company’s conviction at the Federal High Court, where it was found guilty of alleged fraud and illegal financial operations.
The conviction came as a result of a case brought by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), which accused CitiTrust of money laundering, illegal financial operations, and running a Ponzi scheme. The Federal High Court ordered the forfeiture of the firm’s assets to the federal government of Nigeria, citing evidence of unlawful financial activities.
The appeal against the federal government will be heard at the Court of Appeal complex in Tafawa Balewa Square, Lagos. The matter is listed before Court 1 and will first address a motion by the appellants seeking leave to file their appeal out of time. The hearing notice No. CA/L/571/2025 was issued on April 15, 2026.
Oyetola Muyiwa Atoyebi (SAN), counsel to the appellants, submitted a motion dated September 23, 2025, arguing that procedural delays necessitated the application. He explained that although the Record of Appeal was transmitted on May 26, 2025, the defense could not file its Brief of Argument within the stipulated 45 days due to time constraints and competing professional obligations.
Atoyebi further noted that the appellants’ brief exceeds the 35-page limit prescribed under the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021, by three pages, requiring the court’s permission for its adoption. The appellants are therefore seeking the leave of the court to file and serve their Brief of Argument out of time, an order extending the time for filing, and an order deeming the already filed brief as properly filed.
EFCC’s Conviction Against CitiTrust
The EFCC had earlier secured a conviction against CitiTrust and its subsidiaries, CitiTrust Asset Management Limited and CitiTrust Holding Plc, over alleged fraudulent financial operations. In a ruling delivered by Justice Friday Nemakonam Ogazi of the Federal High Court, Lagos, the judge held that there was overwhelming evidence linking the firms to unlawful activities.
The court found that one of the entities was not duly registered with regulatory authorities, including the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), describing the operations as illegal despite corporate registration.
Relying on Section 12 of the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act, 2022, the court ruled that the EFCC had established, on a balance of probabilities, that the assets were proceeds of unlawful activity. Justice Ogazi also invoked provisions of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act and the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), holding that the corporate veil could be lifted where fraud is alleged.
“The law is that when issues of fraud arise, the corporate veil must be lifted. Statutory provisions cannot be used as a refuge to justify illegality,” the court held.
Asset Forfeiture and Investor Compensation
The court subsequently ordered the final forfeiture of CitiTrust-linked assets, forfeiture of shares held in LivingTrust Mortgage Bank Plc, compensation of investors from recovered funds, and transfer of any balance to the Federal Government.
The anti-graft agency had also declared some executive directors of the firm wanted, alleging that they are currently on the run.
Key Legal Proceedings
- Court of Appeal Hearing: The appeal will be heard at the Court of Appeal complex in Tafawa Balewa Square, Lagos.
- Motion for Leave to File Out of Time: The appellants seek permission to file their Brief of Argument beyond the stipulated period.
- Brief of Argument Exceeds Page Limit: The brief exceeds the 35-page limit, requiring court approval for adoption.
- Asset Forfeiture Order: The court ordered the forfeiture of CitiTrust’s assets, shares in LivingTrust Mortgage Bank Plc, and compensation for investors.
- Corporate Veil Lifting: The court upheld the principle that the corporate veil can be lifted in cases of fraud.
