The Lagos State High Court sitting in Igbosere has issued an interim order restraining the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) from arresting or detaining the management of two Honda-affiliated companies and more than 200 other applicants connected to an ongoing investigation.
Justice Olukayode Ogunjobi granted the order following an application by the affected parties, who approached the court over alleged threats to their personal liberty arising from the commission’s investigation.
The applicants include Honda Manufacturing (Nigeria) Limited, Honda Automobile Western Africa Limited, their management officials, dealers, distributors, business associates and other individuals and corporate entities.
Their legal action seeks to prevent the anti-graft agency and its representatives from taking steps that could result in their arrest, detention, intimidation or other restrictions on their freedom while the substantive suit remains before the court.
The application was presented by a legal team led by Chief Bolaji Ayorinde, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), alongside Akinwale Irokosu A. Apara and T. Aluko.
In granting the interim injunction, Justice Ogunjobi approved the applicants’ first prayer and stated that the order extended to the additional reliefs contained in prayers two through six.
The development places the dispute before the court as the parties await further proceedings scheduled for November 13, 2026.
Honda companies, associates seek court protection
The applicants turned to the court seeking legal safeguards against what they alleged were threats of arrest and detention linked to the EFCC’s ongoing investigation.
They asked the court to restrain the commission, its officers, agents and anyone acting under its authority from taking measures that could interfere with their personal liberty before the substantive case is determined.
The request covers not only the two Honda-affiliated companies but also their officials, commercial partners and other individuals and organisations included in the proceedings.
Through their application, the affected parties sought to prevent a situation in which they or their associates could be arrested or detained while the legal dispute remained unresolved.
They also asked the court to ensure that any action taken by the commission in connection with the investigation complied with the relevant provisions of Nigerian law.
The application was brought under Sections 34, 35, 37, 40, 43 and 46 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, as well as relevant provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act.
These provisions formed the legal basis for the applicants’ request for judicial protection.
Applicants challenge further invitations, questioning
Beyond seeking protection against arrest and detention, the applicants requested restrictions on further invitations and questioning connected with the investigation.
They urged the court to prevent the EFCC from compelling them or their officers to attend additional questioning sessions while the substantive suit remained pending.
They also sought an order prohibiting the commission from issuing further invitations to certain applicants, dealers, distributors and business associates in relation to the matter.
Another aspect of their application focused on the possibility of individuals being arrested or detained for failing to honour subsequent invitations.
The applicants asked the court to restrain the EFCC from arresting or detaining any individual applicant solely because the person failed or was unable to respond to further invitations issued in connection with the investigation.
They further sought protection against alleged harassment, intimidation and threats of arrest arising from the commission’s activities.
The applicants also asked the court to prevent the agency from taking any action capable of restricting their liberty without following the procedures established by the Constitution, the Administration of Criminal Justice Act and other applicable laws.
The requests formed part of the wider effort to secure judicial intervention pending the determination of the substantive suit.
Justice Ogunjobi grants interim injunction
After entertaining the application, Justice Ogunjobi granted the first relief sought by the applicants, issuing an interim injunction against their arrest and detention.
The judge also held that the order covered the additional reliefs set out in prayers two to six of the application.
The ruling represents an interim measure in the ongoing proceedings rather than a final determination of the substantive dispute.
An interim injunction is a temporary judicial measure intended to preserve a position or provide protection while a case awaits further consideration.
Its grant does not, by itself, establish the ultimate rights and obligations of the parties or determine the outcome of an underlying investigation.
In this case, the applicants had asked the court to intervene over their concerns about possible arrests, detention and other restrictions on their freedom.
The order addresses the reliefs granted by the court while the substantive proceedings continue.
The case also raises questions concerning the relationship between the investigative responsibilities of law enforcement agencies and the legal protections available to individuals and businesses involved in investigations.
However, the court’s interim decision should not be interpreted as a finding that the EFCC acted unlawfully or that the allegations underlying its investigation have been established or dismissed.
The available details of the proceedings do not establish the specific allegations being investigated by the commission or provide a final determination of the issues raised by the applicants.
Case adjourned until November 13
The Lagos State High Court has fixed November 13, 2026, for the next proceedings in the matter.
The adjournment gives the case an opportunity to progress as the parties pursue their respective positions before the court.
Until the substantive suit is determined, the interim order remains a significant development in the legal dispute between the applicants and the anti-graft agency, subject to the precise terms of the court’s order and any subsequent directions.
Further proceedings are expected to clarify the issues before the court and determine the next steps in the case.
For now, the ruling provides temporary judicial protection under the reliefs granted, while leaving the underlying dispute and the outcome of the EFCC’s investigation unresolved.
About The Author
