The Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday ordered 13 banks and one fintech platform to freeze (post-no-debit) over 30 bank accounts (allowing only inflows) allegedly linked to Dave Kubak Construction, Yele Kufeji, and others over an alleged N310 million fraud investigation involving the sale of “House No. 4, Plot 2A, Reeve Road, Ikoyi, Lagos.”
Justice Emeka Nwite granted the freezing order following an ex parte motion filed by the legal team of the Inspector General of Police (IGP), marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1515/2025.
The 13 respondents in the IGP case include Yele Kufeji, Chisom Olisaemeka, Femi Adewumi, Dave Kubak Private Investment Limited, Kufeji Akinleye Oluseyi, and Dave Kubak Consult.
The over 30 affected bank accounts include those of Dave Kubak Construction, Dave Kubak Energy, and Akinyele Oluseyi Kufeji.
According to the ex parte motion filed by Wisdom Madaki Esq., Directorate of Legal Services, Force Headquarters, and seen by Naijaonpoint, the IGP requested a court order directing the banks to place a post-no-debit restriction but allow the inflow of cash or credit into the affected accounts.
“An order of this honorable court directing the banks to furnish the Inspector General of Police Special Investigation Unit with certified true copies of statements of accounts reflecting transfers, with account numbers of both inflows and outflows from January 2024 to date, the Bank Verification Numbers (BVN) linked to the accounts; arrest the operators, and contact the unit on its GSM number,” he prayed.
According to Madaki, by alleged false pretence, the suspects fraudulently obtained the sum of N310,000,000.00 from the nominal complainant, Mr. Ayodeji Oyetunde Faji, on the pretext of selling House No. 4, Plot 2A, Reeve Road, Ikoyi, Lagos.
Madaki stressed that while Yele Kufeji (1st Respondent) is the Managing Director and alter ego of Dave Kubak Construction Limited, the 2nd Respondent(Olisaemeka) allegedly falsely presented himself to the buyer as the owner of the property.
He alleged that the respondents had sold the property to another person prior to the offer made to the nominal complainant.
“The Respondents fraudulently represented that the property was available,” Madaki stated, alleging that the bank accounts he is seeking to freeze are the accounts that the respondents allegedly used “for their fraudulent activities.”
“There is a need for the court to freeze the accounts for the purpose of investigation,” he stated in the motion.
He added that if the orders were not granted, it may jeopardize police investigations.
At the resumed hearing on Wednesday, Madaki announced his appearance and urged the court to freeze the bank accounts in line with his ex parte motion (an application that does not require the presence of respondents).
“Under the law, how long does it take to freeze a bank account?” Justice Nwite asked Madaki.
“There is no time limit,” he responded.
The lawyer asked for a 90-day freezing order, but the judge said he would grant only a 60-day freezing order.
The lawyer asked for a 90-day freezing order, but the judge said he would grant only a 60-day freezing order.
Ruling on the application, Nwite said, having gone through the police lawyer’s submission and affidavit evidence, “I am of the view and hold that the application is meritorious.”
The judge granted the freezing application, but limited it to 60 days.
The matter was then adjourned until September 29 for further hearing.