Topbrass Aviation, operators of Bombardier Dash 8 Q300 aircraft.
By Ibeawuchi Ambrose Uwaleke, (Advocatenewsng.com) 09064186047.
A Federal High Court, Lagos division, sitting before Justice Ambrose Lewis-Alagoa has reserved October 29, 2025 for parties to adopt their written addresses in a $12.5 million and N2 billion suit brought against the Minister of Aviation and Aerospace Development, Mr. Festus Keyamo, SAN, Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN), Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA), Nigerian Airspace Management Agency (NAMA) by Topbrass Aviation Limited contesting the disappearance of its two aircraft, Bombardier Dash 8 Q300 series from FAAN facility after a court of competent jurisdiction issued an order restraining the agencies from allowing the exit of the two airplanes from leaving Nigerian airspace.
The defence closed their case on July 24, 2025 four days before the court proceeded on this year’s annual vacation after calling their witnesses to give evidence on what they knew or did not know about the disappearance of the two aeroplanes.
One of the witnesses called by the defence included one Mr. Ejike Nwamkpa, a lawyer, who appeared for NAMA and said during cross examination that his agency under any circumstance does not clear any aircraft to leave Nigerian airspace if there are issues against the airplane including an order of court. But when he was asked whether he knew about the order of the court restraining his agency from clearing the two aircraft to leave Nigerian airspace, he answered in the affirmative, but denied knowledge of how the two aircraft were eventually flown out of Nigeria. He however urged the court to strike out the name of NAMA as nothing concerned his agency for safe-keeping of aeroplanes at airports.
The next witness, Usman Issa Tochukwu, a lawyer who said he is a Moslem and not a Christian, and who appeared for NCAA and the Minister of Aviation also urged the court to strike out the names of his agency, NCAA and that of the minister as they were not directly responsible for the disappearance of the two aircraft in question or parties to the transaction that led to the removal of the airplanes. Tochukwu however agreed that when a court has issued an order, it ought to be obeyed, adding that he was aware of the restraining order of the Federal High Court stopping his agency and the minister from allowing the two aircraft to fly out of Nigerian airspace. But could not explain why the airplanes were released against the order of the court.
The FAAN witness whose name was not readily made available also denied knowledge of the disappearance of the two aircraft even when the letter written by his agency authorizing the release of the subject planes was shown to him, he still feigned ignorance, but acknowledged that there was an order of the court restraining FAAN from releasing the aircraft.
Dr. Chukwuechefu Okatta, led in evidence-in-chief and cross examinations for FAAN, while Oluwafemi Olabisi appeared for NCAA and the Minister of Aviation and Aerospace Development, and Mr. Lawrence Njoku Esq, represented NAMA during the proceedings.
The plaintiff, Topbrass Avation Limited engaged a team of Senior Advocates of Nigeria, SANs and other senior lawyers led by a former Attorney General of the Federation, (AGF) and Minister of Justice, and an ex-president of the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, Chief Bayo Ojo, SAN, CON. He was supported at the proceedings by the following: Chief Duro Adeyele, SAN, Chief Sheni Ibiwoye, SAN, Mr. Chukwudi Adiukwu, SAN, Olanrewaju Obadina Esq., Olasunkanmi A. Oladiran Esq., Mariam O. Babalola Esq. and Testimony Oluwadare Esq.
Their only witness was the president and chief executive officer, CEO of the plaintiff company, Topbrass Aviation Limited, Captain Roland Iyayi who was led in evidence by Chief Ojo, SAN and cross examined by the defence counsel.
In his testimony he stated thus:
That the Plaintiff entered into a Sublease Agreement on the 26th day of August 2011 with one Seagold Investments Limited (Seagold), a Company registered in the British Virgin Islands for Two (2) Bombardier Dash 8 Q300 Series aircraft with Manufacturer’s Serial Numbers (MSN) 613 & 614 respectively for a period of Two (2) years, which term commenced on the 1st day of September 2011. The Sublease agreement is hereby pleaded.
I know that prequel to the Sublease Agreement, Seagold had entered into an Aircraft Head Lease Agreement with Cabinda Gulf Oil Company Limited, Kyami Statutory Trust and Barclays Bank (UK) Plc, with Seagold Investment Limited as Borrower. The Lease Agreement is hereby pleaded.
That it was based on the Head Lease Agreement that Seagold entered into the Sublease Agreement dated 26th day of August 2011 (which was also a Finance – Purchase Agreement) with the Plaintiff for the two (2) Bombardier Dash 8 Q300 series Aircraft for an initial period of two (2) years, which term commenced on 1st September 2011.
That I also know as a fact that as a part of the lease agreement, the Plaintiff and Seagold also executed a Consent and Undertaking Agreement and Purchase Option, Power by the Hour Transfer, Ferry Flight and Additional Services Letters, which amongst other rights, gives the Plaintiff the right of first refusal to purchase the two (2) Bombardier Dash 8 Q300 series aircraft at the expiration of the purchase dates as stated in the letters, exercisable on the last business day of the current sublease or where the Plaintiff has exercised the Extension Option, on the last business day of the extended sublease term. I shall rely on the Sublease Agreement dated 26th August 2011 and the Consent and Undertaking Agreement and Power by the Hour Transfer, Ferry Flight and Additional Services Letters at the trial of this suit.
That Seagold had operated both the Bombardier Dash 8 Q300 series aircraft, (which had then become surplus to its requirements, having been required to replace and had replaced and upgraded to the larger Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 model aircraft) for Cabinda Gulf Oil Company Limited in Angola, an affiliate of Chevron International Inc., which then prompted Chevron Nigeria Limited to request for the two (2) Bombardier Dash 8 Q300 series aircraft specifically to carry out its operations in Nigeria, for an initial period of two (2) years from 1st March 2011 to 28th February 2013, with further extensions until 31st December 2013.
That Seagold agreed to lease the aircraft to the Plaintiff on the basis that Chevron Nigeria Limited guaranteed the monthly lease rental payments of both aircraft leased to the Plaintiff, but Chevron Nigeria Limited declined on the basis that the National Petroleum Investment Management Services (NAPIMS) and Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR), both subsidiaries of the Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) forbade any multinational international oil corporation with whom it had a Joint-Venture operation from however acquiring any aircraft assets without its prior consent.
That as a result, the Plaintiff was required to assume Seagold Investment Limited’s mortgage liabilities to Barclays Bank (UK) Plc of London (for the outstanding loan obligation for the purchase of both aircraft) and pay the monthly Finance-Lease rental fee of $210,000.00 (Two Hundred and Ten Thousand United States Dollars) only per aircraft, instead of what ordinarily would have been approximately US$85,000.00 (Eighty-Five Thousand United States Dollars) at the fair market value for an operating Lease rental per aircraft and thereafter also provide an additional Standby Letter of Credit (SBLC) in the sum of US$1.260 million, covering three (3) months finance-lease rental payments for both aircraft in advance in the event of a default, which the Plaintiff provided and paid from date of delivery on 26th August, 2011, even though its contract with Chevron had not yet commenced then.
I know that in line with the terms of the Sublease Agreement, the Plaintiff expressed its interest to purchase the aircraft outright vide letters dated 12th July 2013, 26th September 2013, and 12th November 2013, and same were all neglected and unacknowledged by Seagold and Seagold refused to avail the Plaintiff the opportunity to exercise its right of first refusal as entrenched in the relevant Agreements and see it to fruition. Letters dated 12th July 2013, 26th September 2013 and 12th November 2013 shall be relied on during the trial of this suit.
That this unwholesome development prompted me, in the company of the Plaintiff’s external Solicitors to personally meet with Guillaume Clignet, the alter ego of Seagold in London, to impress upon him the need to confirm in writing the Plaintiff’s right of first refusal to purchase both aircraft outrightly.
That I know as a fact also that eventually, Seagold reluctantly confirmed through a letter dated 21st January 2014 the Plaintiff’s right to purchase the two (2) Bombardier Dash 8 Q300 series aircraft. The Plaintiff then began the process of purchasing the aircraft, which required getting a credit facility from its bankers.
That the Plaintiff’s bankers, Messrs. Diamond Bank Plc. (now Access Bank Plc.) had written to Seagold requesting for a proforma invoice for the residual value of both aircraft, to facilitate the processing of the credit line being sought by the Plaintiff, to pay off Seagold for the full ownership of the aircraft as contained in the provisions of the Aircraft Purchase-Lease/Sub-Lease Agreement packages, a request Seagold did not oblige in flagrant violation and breach of the terms of the various agreements entered into. I shall rely on the letter from Diamond Bank (now Access Bank Plc) dated March 7, 2014.
However, vide a letter dated 27th February 2014, Seagold through its Solicitors informed the Plaintiff of its intention to repossess the two (2) Bombardier Dash 8 Q300 series aircraft by 15th March 2014. This is notwithstanding the fact that the Plaintiff was not in default of its lease rental obligations to Seagold, and that the Plaintiff had further indicated its interest and intention to exercise its rights of first refusal to purchase both Bombardier Dash 8 Q300 series aircraft outrightly, as provided for by the various Agreements entered into by parties.
That this notice to repossess both aircraft was an attempt to deny the Plaintiff of its right to purchase the aircraft, even after the Plaintiff had assumed and fully paid off Seagold’s outstanding mortgage liabilities on both aircraft to Barclays Bank (UK) Plc, paid the due monthly Finance-Lease rental fees as stated above for a period of twenty-six (26) months in the total sum $10,920,000.00 (Ten Million Nine Hundred and Twenty Thousand United States Dollars) without default, also providing a Standby Letter of Credit (SBLC) as guarantee in the sum of $1,260,000.00 (One Million, Two Hundred and Sixty Thousand United States Dollars) in the event of a default, as well as having expended the sum of $1,544,920.01 (One Million Five Hundred and Forty-Four Thousand, Nine Hundred and Twenty United States Dollars and one Cent) only, for the due replacement/overhaul of all four (4) propellers installed on both aircraft upon delivery, a responsibility which ordinarily should have been borne by Seagold before the delivery of both aircraft was consummated.
That I again contacted Mr. Guillaume Clignet of Seagold, to enquire about the rationale behind the action by Seagold to want to repossess both aircraft, despite having fulfilled all the necessary requirements for the purchase of both aircraft and not being in default, Guillaume Clignet had only then confided in me that Seagold had been surreptitiously approached by Chevron Nigeria Limited to repossess both aircraft from the Plaintiff and turn over same to Messrs. Aerocontractors Company of Nigeria Limited, as Chevron Nigeria Limited no longer wished to renew its contract with the Plaintiff, because the Plaintiff had instituted an action against Chevron for the recovery and payment of its indebtedness to the Plaintiff then totaling the sum of US$11,000,000.00 (Eleven Million United States Dollars).
That Seagold did not reveal to Chevron Nigeria Limited that it had entered into a Finance-Purchase Agreement with the Plaintiff on these two (2) Bombardier Dash 8 Q300 series aircraft and was not an ordinary operating lease arrangement. But wanting to impress and please Chevron International Inc., in order to continue to secure its contract in Angola, Seagold proceeded, nonetheless, to ignore the provisions of its binding agreements with the Plaintiff in clear breach of contract.
That Seagold without recourse to the Plaintiff, had proceeded to surreptitiously de-register both aircraft from the Nigerian registry, with the active connivance of the 2nd Defendant (Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA), on the false and injurious premise of activating the provisions of the executed Irrevocable Deregistration Authority (IDERA), even though the Plaintiff was not in default of any lease rental obligations and having provided the additional security of a 24-month Standby Letter of Credit (SBLC) in the sum of US$1.26M, which was still valid and covering three (3) months’ lease rental payments in advance for both aircraft, as a first recourse in the event of a default.
That as a result of this breach of a fundamental aspect of its agreements by Seagold, the Plaintiff instituted an action against Seagold in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1658/2005 – between TOPBRASS Aviation Ltd. V. Seagold Investments Ltd. & Ors. on 5th November 2015, seeking several reliefs essentially to allow the Plaintiff to exercise its first right of first refusal to purchase of both Aircraft.
That in order to protect the two (2) Bombardier Dash 8 Q300 series Aircraft (the res), the Plaintiff applied for an order of preservation of both Aircraft from repossession and an injunction restraining Seagold (the 1st Defendant therein) from taking possession and delivery of the Aircraft pending the determination of the substantive suit and same was granted by the Honourable Court on 4th December 2015. I shall rely on the Order of the Honourable Court dated 4th December 2015 at the trial of this Suit.
That despite the service of the Originating Processes and the Order dated 4th December 2015 on Seagold, Seagold still went ahead with the aid and active connivance of the Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority (2nd Defendant herein) to de-register the two (2) Bombardier Dash 8 Q300 series aircraft from the Nigerian registry.
That, further to the above paragraph 26, the Plaintiff then wrote a letter dated 20th November 2015 through its Counsel to the 2nd Defendant, informing the 2nd Defendant of the pendency of the Suit and informing the 2nd Defendant of the consequences of allowing the aircraft to be de-registered and/or giving clearance for both aircraft to be ferried out of Nigeria. I shall rely on the letter to the 2nd Defendant dated 20th November 2015.
That notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s letter pleaded above, the 2nd Defendant allowed the two (2) Bombardier Dash 8 Q300 series aircraft to be formally de-registered from the register of aircraft maintained with the 2nd Defendant.
That the Plaintiff’s Counsel also wrote to the 1st & 2nd Defendants herein through letters dated 18th April 2018 informing and reminding them of the pendency of Suit No: FHC/L/CS/1658/2015 and asking them to ensure that both aircraft were not illegally flown out of Nigeria. I shall rely on the letters to the 1st and 2nd Defendants dated 18th April 2018.
That I know as a fact that the parties to the above-mentioned suit thereafter started exploring avenues for an amicable settlement, but no settlement was achieved more particularly after the Plaintiff became aware that Seagold (the 1st Defendant therein) had been acting malafide through One Captain Baba Mohammed in trying to illegally repossess both aircraft.
That this Captain Baba Mohammed, through a letter dated 25th June 2018 wrote to the Plaintiff stating that he had an Irrevocable Power of Attorney from Seagold and requested for the return of both Aircraft’s documentations. I shall place reliance on the letter dated 25th June 2018 during the trial.
That Captain Baba Mohammed, acting in cohort with the 1st Defendant herein moved both Aircraft from their original parking spots and erased the registration numbers on both Aircraft in a bid to give the Aircraft different registration numbers and illegally ferry them out of Nigeria and out of the jurisdiction of the Court. I hereby plead and shall rely on the pictures showing the process of erasing the original registration numbers on both Aircraft during the trial of this suit.
That despite the 2nd Defendant’s knowledge of the pending suit and the subsisting Order of Court of 4th December 2015, the 2nd Defendant through a letter dated 5th July 2018 wrote to the Plaintiff asking the Plaintiff to confirm to the Authority that it had complied with the request of the holder of the Power of Attorney of Seagold to transfer/release the maintenance records of the Aircraft to the Donee of the Power of Attorney. I hereby plead and shall rely on the letter dated 5th July 2018.
That I know that the Plaintiff through its counsel, brought the illegal actions of the 2nd Defendant to the attention of the Court vide an application dated 4th July 2018 and the Honourable Court granted the prayers therein on 11th July 2018 re-emphasizing the order granted on 4th December 2015, and directing that the Order was extended to and binding on the Defendants therein and any other person or body seeking to tamper with the Aircraft. The Defendants herein were thereby bound by the Court Order. I shall rely on the Order dated 11th July 2018.
That I know that the Order of the Honourable Court dated 11th July 2018 was duly served on the Defendants on 23rd July 2018.
That despite the service and receipt of the Order of Court, the 1st and 2nd Defendants especially allowed engineers from Aerocontractors Company of Nigeria Limited unfettered access to both Aircraft in flagrant contravention of the Court Order.
That vide letter dated the 10th of July 2018, the 2nd Defendant acknowledged receipt of the Plaintiff’s letter dated 26th June 2018, which had informed the Authority of the subsisting Order dated 4th December 2015 as well as the pending suit, wherein it stated that the deregistration of both Aircraft was made pursuant to the request of the holder of the Power of Attorney donated by Seagold, irrespective of the fact that the Plaintiff had fulfilled all the necessary obligations to Seagold. I shall rely on the Letter dated 10th July 2018.
That I know, in response to the 2nd Defendant’s letter of 10th July 2018, the Plaintiff caused its Solicitor to write yet another letter dated 23rd July 2018 reiterating the effect of the Orders of the Court and the attempts made by Captain Baba Mohammed in repossessing and ferrying both Aircraft out of Nigeria. I hereby plead and shall rely on the Letter dated 23rd July 2018.
That I also know as a fact that the Plaintiff wrote a letter to the 2nd Defendant on 1st August 2018 after the 1st and 2nd Defendants had granted engineers from Aerocontractors Company of Nigeria Limited unfettered access to both Aircraft, reiterating the contents of the Orders of the Court and admonished them to cease and desist from any further act that could amount to contravening the subsisting Orders of the Court. I shall rely on the Letter dated 1st August 2018.
That in response to the letter, the 2nd Defendant vide a letter dated 9th August 2018, acknowledged the receipt of the order of the Court and its binding effect on the Authority and further stated that the Order did not impose any direct responsibility on the 2nd Defendant. I hereby plead and shall rely on the Letter dated 9th August 2018.
That despite the service of the Orders of the Court on the Defendants as well as the various letters urging them to heed to the Ruling of the Honourable Court, efforts to repossess both Aircraft and illegally ferry them out of the jurisdiction of the Court were intensified by Seagold and Captain Baba Mohammed in collusion with the Defendants.
That I know that the deliberate and willful actions of the Defendants, to continue to undermine the Orders of the Honourable Court with the sole objective of illegally ferrying both aircraft out of the country, caused the Plaintiff to file and serve Forms 48 and 49 on the 1st to 3rd Defendants in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1658/2015 – between TopBrass Aviation Ltd. V. Seagold Investments Ltd. & Ors. I shall rely on the Forms 48 and 49 served on the Defendants.
That despite the service of both Forms 48 & 49 on the Defendants, the 1st Defendant through a letter dated 5th September 2018 signed by its Director of Legal Services on behalf of the Managing Director/Chief Executive, formally gave Seagold Investment Limited the authority to have unfettered access to both aircraft, by instructing its Regional/Airport Manager of the Murtala Mohammed General Aviation Terminal to release both aircraft forthwith to Seagold through its appointed and nominated proxy, Capt. Baba Mohammed. I shall rely on the Letter dated 5th September 2018.
That on the strength of this letter, Seagold through Captain Baba Mohammed commissioned workers to tow and park both aircraft at the apron of Aerocontractors Company of Nigeria Limited’s hangar, where they worked on them with a view to ferrying them out of the Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court of Nigeria. The Aircraft were both moved from their parking lots at the General Aviation Terminal of the Murtala Mohammed Airport, Ikeja and were then stationed at the apron of Aerocontractors’ Maintenance and Overhaul hangar with their registration numbers already wiped off and work was commenced in earnest on both Aircraft preparatory to ferrying them out of the country.
That despite the subsisting suit, Restraining Orders of the Court, commencement of Contempt Proceedings and various reminders to obey the Order of the Court, Seagold with the aid of the Defendants still went ahead and ferried the Bombardier Dash 8 Q300 aircraft with Manufacturer’s Serial Number (MSN) 613, which was previously registered as 5N-TBB but now re-registered as C-GIXF out of Nigeria on 27th May 2019.
Having stated his claims, the plaintiff asked the court for the following reliefs:
. A declaration that the individual and collective actions of the Defendants in deliberately authorizing and/or permitting the two (2) Bombardier Dash 8 Q300 series Aircraft to be taken away from Nigeria, out of the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court are wrongful, illegal, malicious and in violation of the Orders of this Honourable Court delivered on the 4th December 2015 and 11th July 2018 respectively.
. Special damages in the sum of US$12,500,000.00 (Twelve Million, Five Hundred Thousand United States Dollars) only, being for:
. Expenses on the purchase-lease rental payments for the two (2) Bombardier Dash 8 Q300 series Aircraft for 26 months;
. Expenses on repair and replacement of all four (4) propellers installed on the two (2) Bombardier Dash 8 Q300 series Aircraft on delivery, and
. The cost of instituting the case:
. Exemplary and Aggravated damages in the sum of N2,000,000,000.00 (Two Billion Naira) only, for the heavy losses foisted on the Plaintiff by the Defendants through their wrong and illegal actions of allowing the res of Suit No: FHC/L/CS/1658/2015 (the two (2) Bombardier Dash 8 Q300 series Aircraft), to be taken outside the jurisdiction of the Honourable Court, despite the Orders of the Court to the contrary with the action pending before the Court, in exercise of uncivilized official impunity and disregard for the rule of law.
. Interest on the sum of money spent on purchase-lease rental and repairs of the two (2) Bombardier Dash 8 Q300 series Aircraft at the rate of 25% per annum from whence the expenses were incurred.
. Post judgement interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the judgement Sum until same is fully liquidated.
. But the defence responded by urging the court to strike out the suit or dismiss it, adding that based on the denials raised by them in their counter affidavit the plaintiff’s suit is incompetent against the defendants.
“That it is in the interest of justice and the sanctity of the judicial process that the plaintiff’s suit be struck out or dismissed with serious punitive cost and
“That the plaintiff is not entitled to all the claims stated in its paragraphs as they are baseless, unmeritorious and abuse of court process and therefore ought to be struck out or dismissed with substantial cost.
All these claims and counter claims will be submitted on the 29th of October, 2025 when parties’ counsel are expected to present and exchange their written addresses at the court to prove their points, and the court will then give a date for ruling on the matter.
