Uyobong Jonah

[Mohammed @Mansaah_Musa]

She has a Private equity firm and this is what her private equity firm does.

Her company buy companies that are not publicly traded on the stock market, improve them, and later sell them for a profit.

Here's a simple example:

Imagine a bakery is worth ₦10 million, but it is poorly managed.

A private equity firm buys the bakery.

They hire better managers, expand to more locations, reduce unnecessary costs, and increase profits.

Five years later, the bakery is worth ₦50 million.

The firm sells it and makes a profit.

Think of it like this:
Private equity is like buying an old house, renovating it to make it more valuable, and then selling it at a higher price.

The difference is that instead of houses, private equity firms buy and improve businesses.

[Akpor Ikogho @legal_padi]

WHEN DOES A COMPANY'S DEBT BECOME A DIRECTOR’S PERSONAL PROBLEM?

Unity Bank Plc v. Tambuwal Constr. & Trading Co. Ltd. (2025) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1992) 211

QUESTION

As a director, can you be required to personally pay a debt owed by your company?

ANSWER

Yes, but not simply because you are a director.

A company is separate from the people who own or manage it. As a result, a debt owed by the company is ordinarily the company's responsibility.

However, the position changes where a director personally guarantees the debt. Once a director signs as a guarantor or surety, the lender may be entitled to recover the debt from that director if the company fails to pay.

LEGAL BACKGROUND

Many directors assume that because a company is separate from its owners and managers, they can never be personally responsible for the company's obligations. That is only partly correct.

The general rule is that the company's debts belong to the company. A director who merely acts on behalf of the company is not automatically responsible for paying those debts.

The situation is different where the director gives a personal guarantee. By doing so, the director is effectively telling the lender: "If the company does not pay, I will."

In some cases, the director may even provide personal property as security for the facility. Where the company defaults, the lender may then proceed against the guarantor and any property pledged as security.

FACTS IN BRIEF

Unity Bank Plc sued Tambuwal Construction & Trading Co. Ltd. for the recovery of N61,214,693.11 said to be outstanding on banking facilities granted to the company. The bank also joined the company's managing director to the suit on the basis that he personally guaranteed the facility and provided properties as security for the debt. The trial court entered judgment in favour of the bank.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

Appellant - Unity Bank argued that the company received the facilities, failed to repay them and remained indebted. The bank further maintained that the managing director had personally guaranteed repayment and was therefore equally liable for the outstanding debt.

Respondents - The respondents contended that the alleged debt was the company's obligation and not that of the managing director. They relied on the principle that a company is separate from its directors and should bear its own liabilities.

DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court found in favour of the bank. While reaffirming that a company is separate from its directors, the Court held that the managing director could not escape liability because he had personally guaranteed the facility and provided security for it. The guarantee created a separate obligation that the bank was entitled to enforce.

PRACTICAL LESSON

Being a director does not automatically make you responsible for your company's debt.

What creates the real risk is signing a personal guarantee or standing as a surety for the company's obligations. Once you do that, the lender may look beyond the company and come after you personally if the company fails to pay.

Before signing any guarantee for a company loan, understand exactly what you are committing yourself to and what personal assets may be exposed if things go wrong.

[MIKE BAMILOYE @mikebamiloye]

THE STORY OF “AGBARA NLA”

1987 - At the National Festival of Christian Drama (HARVEST 87) organized by Mount Zion Faith Ministries, at GOFAMINT- International Gospel Centre, Ojoo, Ibadan, drama leaders and Coordinators were gathered at separate meeting to share the vision with them of coming together with us to shoot the first Nigerian Christian movie.
The meeting was successful as we all rose from the meeting to strategize.
The Script was written and the Title was : “AGBARA TO JU AGBARA LO”.
We began series of meetings and Casting and rehearsals at OritaMefa Baptist Church, Total Garden Ibadan. And drama ministers majorly from church and campus drama groups were coming to the meetings from many cities and campuses, notably from UNILAG, UI, Ogun State University, College of Education, ILESA, etc, including many from Church drama Groups. .
Then, the film shooting began. The Cameraman was recommended for us and attended many meetings and rehearsals with us.
The Village Location was at APETE Village.
Then, after all our efforts and labours of many brethren from church and campuses, when the film shoot was completed, THE CAMERAMAN DISAPPEARED WITH THE TAPES.
All efforts to locate him proved abortive. So the vision was rested and it died.

1993. - When we had already made Five or six movies successfully, and we were more stable in ministry, the Holy Spirit brought up the matter of shooting the movie again. Now as a Television serial.
The Script was revisited and rewritten again.
We called on brethren and drama ministers gathered with us at BADEKU Village, Ibadan.
A FOURSQUARE Gospel Church Pastor gave us N5,000 to deposit for the Camera. And Rev Idowu Animashawun of World Hope Mission, BADEKU hosted us in the village all through the Muwonleru village Scenes
Bro Kayode Oyebode Oju Oluwa-Kay Technical was the Camera man and Technical Director of the 1993 TV Serial: AGBARA NLA
It was broadcast across the existing TV Channels of Western Nigeria in those days.
1994 - The Lord instructed us to go back on location and make the movie in English Language: ULTIMATE POWER. It was the English Version that spread across the Eastern and Northern Nigeria and beyond in 1994.

2025 - September/October we were on film location to do a Remake of this iconic production. 
Rewritten and Directed by DAMILOLA Mike -Bamiloye
Produced By: CHRIS ODEH
Jointly Sponsored by: Mount Zion Films, Sozo Films and Circuit-TV
Therefore the story of the production of AGBARA NLA had began since 1987.
Now it is time to appear on the Global Stage in the Name of the Lord. Amen.
#mikebamiloye

[Uyobong Jonah @VoiceNxt]

@dammiedammie35 Ma'am, was it akara, corn or kuli-kuli that got you to this position? 🙂

[LawPavilion @LawPavilion]

The Supreme Court is generally functus officio after delivering its judgment and will only revisit its decision in exceptional circumstances.

In JOKOLO v. GOVERNOR OF KEBBI STATE & ORS (2026) LPELR-84411(SC), the apex court reaffirmed the principle of finality of litigation by

[Corporate Affairs Commission @cacnigeria1]

JOINT PRESS STATEMENT

REQUIREMENT FOR PRIOR REGULATORY APPROVAL ON CHANGES IN SHAREHOLDING/OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE OF COMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES

The Nigerian Communications Commission (NC) and the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) hereby inform the general public, investors, and all stakeholders in the communications sector on compliance requirements regarding changes in the ownership structure of licensed communications companies in Nigeria.

This requirement is pursuant to the provisions of Section 90 of the Nigerian Communications Act 2003 (NCA 2003), Regulation 28(2) of the Competition Practices Regulations, 2007, and Regulation 42 of the Licensing Regulations, 2019, which collectively empower the NCto oversee and review transactions affecting licensees and promote fair competition.

Effective immediately any proposed transfer of ownership or control of shares in a licensee of the Nigerian Communications Commission, amounting to ten percent (10%) or more of the total share capital, as well as any series of share transfers which in aggregate exceed ten percent (10%) of the total share capital of the Licensee shall require a Letter of No Objection from NCC in order for the changes to be effected and registered with the CAC.

By this measure, the CAC will ensure that all requests for change in shareholding structure amounting to 10% or more, submitted for registration by telecommunications companies are duly supported by evidence of NCC's prior consent and approval.

The requirement is designed to preserve a fair and competitive market structure within the communications sector by preventing direct or indirect anti-competitive practices, while strengthening regulatory oversight of significant changes in ownership and control. It will further promote transparency, investor confidence and regulatory certainty and safeguard the long-term sustainability and stability of the industry.

The NCC and the CAC reaffirm their shared commitment to advancing a transparent, stable, and competitive business environment in Nigeria.
Both agencies will continue to work closely to promote regulatory certainty, ensure fair market practices, and support the orderly and sustainable development of Nigeria's Communications Sector.

Signed:

Nnena Ukoha
Director, Public Affairs
Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC)

Rasheed Mahe
Head, Public Affairs
Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC)

Date: June 21, 2026.

[Supreme Court of Nigeria @SupremeCourtNg]

Public Notice

[Uyobong Jonah @VoiceNxt]

@_heisiruoo_ Premium marketing

[Uyobong Jonah @VoiceNxt]

@80s_Esq The circumstances that should warrant admissibility of hearsay evidence are as provided in the Evidence Act... anything outside those exceptions is considered inadmissible

[Uyobong Jonah @VoiceNxt]

@egi_nupe I'd love to read the legal arguments and the laws relied upon. Surrogacy is largely unregulated in Nigeria

[Chinalu Okorie @Chinaluemmanuel]

For young litigation lawyers, learn when to respond and when not to respond to issues in a given situation.

Litigation and legal advocacy are not a popularity contest in the courtroom. Pay attention to issues and learn when to utilise your time judiciously and effectively.

The Court is a Court of Justice. Where you observe that the Court is doing the "Lord's Work" in your favour, do not interject, allow it to flow.

Example:
Court: What is the matter for today?

Prosecuting Counsel: My Lord, we intend to reopen our case. On the last adjourned date, the Defence Lawyer closed the case of the Defence.
We believe it will be in the interest of justice to reopen our case.

Court: From the file before me, the Defence Lawyer has filed the Defendant's Final Address in this case. Why do you want the Court to reopen your case where the Defence Lawyer has closed his case, filed Final Address and served you? Why?

Prosecuting Counsel: My Lord, in the interest of justice, we believe the Court will appreciate the facts of this case when it is reopened.

Court: I will not allow you to reopen your case, as you have seen the Defence's argument and the issues they've raised in their Final Address.
It will overreach the Defendant.

AT THIS POINT as a (young) Lawyer, the Court is doing the "Lord's work". Do not interject. Allow the Court to finish it.
Pay attention to details and be calm until the Court calls on you to respond.

The best you can do at that point is to be chorusing AS THE COURT PLEASES with other Lawyers in the Court.

Have a fruitful day.❤️

[Ridwan Oke @RidwanuLlah]

I read this case a few weeks ago, Ajayi v. S.E.C. (2023) 6 NWLR Part 1881. I was screaming when I read the opinion of Abaji J.S.C.

Apparently, the Appellant (Ajayi) was the Finance and Accounts Manager of African Petroleum PLC. The company issued a prospectus for offer of sale of shares to the Public. A Company, Sadiq Petroleum relied on the Prospectus and bought 30% of the Shares, apparently, the prospectus contained untrue statement and stated the company’s indebtedness to be 10.2B instead of a whopping 22 Billion. The company that bought 30% of the shares found out subsequently and sued at the Administrative Proceedings Committee and they found the Appellant who signed the Prospectus liable. In fact, section 62(1) and (2) of the Investments and Securities Act 1999 specifically provided that the persons who authorized the prospectus are to be held liable for compensation for loss or damage they sustain by reason of any untrue statement included in the Prospectus.

The Appellant instead of appealing to the Tribunal appealed to the FHC which denied jurisdiction and referred the matter back to IST (Investment Securities Tribunal-IST). The appellant, instead of going back to IST as directed went to the Court of Appeal, he lost. He appealed to the Supreme Court and the Court dismissed the Appeal.

Abba Aji J.S.C. in dismissing the appeal noted “The FHC was gracious and magnanimous to refer the appellant’s case to the Tribunal instead of dismissing same. However, the implacable and opinionated resoluteness of the appellant will not allow him to bow to reasoning that he has to strenuously take up this matter to the apex court. It is often said that it is only the stubborn fly that follows the corpse to the grave. All the journeys of the appellant from the Federal High Court, Court of appeal and to the Supreme Court is a wasted and futile one and will only birth him a BLIND CHILD”.

KEY TAKEAWAYS:

1. The Appellant didn’t defend the suit at the Administrative panel despite being served. The court relied heavily on this and referenced it. Defending yourself is absolutely necessary even if you get assurance from other party to a suit, seek independent legal counsel

2. The Appellant issued the prospectus, the ISA expressly makes him liable. Professionals should always endeavor to understand and be sure of whatever document they are signing and never sacrifice quality as they can be held liable at any time. Professionals must know that the public rely on their opinions and must stay guarded when offering them to avoid misleading others.

3. Not all cases should get to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was not only disappointed, they also rejected the appeal with costs. Litigants and their Lawyers should endeavor to review their cases properly and determine the best line of action especially where the trial court has transferred the case to a Tribunal.

[Uyobong Jonah @VoiceNxt]

@_empighalo Ouch! 🤕

[Uyobong Jonah @VoiceNxt]

@Chibuik57080063 @mrfestusogun I'm curious too

[Lawverse Magazine @LawverseM]

“When you're starting out in law, it’s easy to confuse looking successful with building success.”

Here are 11 things young lawyers waste too much time worrying about, and the mindset shifts required to fix them.

[Uyobong Jonah @VoiceNxt]

@jokerookiee @peace_igho Spot on!

[Uyobong Jonah @VoiceNxt]

@itzchristunique I believe the next question from her should have been, "how many persons will I be cooking for?"

[Gideon Odoma @gideonodoma]

ABUJA APOLOGETICS CONFERENCE

Please, register if you plan to attend. Registration is FREE but COMPULSORY.

(Corrected)

[ToluwalogoAgboola @RevToluAgboola]

Many believers do not actually desire JESUS as their treasure. They desire JESUS as their advantage.
The distinction is important. One man follows CHRIST because he has seen HIS beauty. Another follows CHRIST because he believes CHRIST can improve his circumstances. The first seeks GOD. The second seeks himself through GOD.

[ToluwalogoAgboola @RevToluAgboola]

The highest revelation in the Christian life is not that JESUS can give you everything you want.
It is that after seeing HIM rightly, HE becomes all you truly want.