The controversy surrounding the sale of properties known as 24A and 24B Aba/Owerri Road, Aba, has taken a new turn following a rejoinder by counsel to the parties involved. According to the statement, the transaction was not an unauthorised disposal of First Atlantic Investment Company Limited’s property, as alleged in some publications. The solicitor, Tochukwu Anaba Esq., maintains that he was formally appointed by the company on September 4, 2023, following a meeting convened by Mr. Nnanyeremugo Nwachukwu and Mrs. Uchechi Evoh, with the mandate expressly covering the company’s Aba properties.
The rejoinder further argues that Ribiza Hotels & Resort Limited entered the transaction as a third-party purchaser after an earlier proposed sale to O.J. Vital Services Limited failed to materialise. It contends that O.J. Vital’s inability to complete payment led to Ribiza becoming the eventual purchaser, with the transaction subsequently documented by a Deed of Sale registered at the Abia State Lands Registry. The counsel therefore argues that Ribiza should not be blamed for an internal corporate dispute within First Atlantic, particularly because the purchaser relied on the corporate authority and documents presented at the time.
At the centre of the dispute is a purported corporate resolution dated December 1, 2014, which is being relied upon to challenge Mrs. Evoh’s authority. The rejoinder questions the authenticity of the document, noting that it allegedly carries the signature of Mr. Godfrey Chima Okogbue, who, according to the document, died in April 2013. It also raises allegations of forged signatures and refers to a 2024 Police Investigation Report which, the counsel says, recorded forensic findings concerning Mrs. Evoh’s disputed signature. However, the statement acknowledges that these issues remain matters for the appropriate judicial process to determine.
The legal battle is still ongoing, with the rejoinder stressing that the Federal High Court judgment being relied upon by some parties is under appeal in Appeal No. CA/LAG/CV/1000/2025. Counsel insists that the validity of the transaction must ultimately be determined through authentic corporate records, transaction documents, admissible evidence and the law—not through media publications or competing narratives. The statement also questions why parties alleging fraud and forgery would seek to restrain further Police investigation into the same allegations, arguing that genuine claims should withstand investigation and scrutiny. For now, the dispute remains before the relevant judicial and investigative authorities, where the competing claims are expected to be tested by evidence.
