The Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, has nullified the final forfeiture order previously granted in favour of the Federal Government over assets belonging to former Central Bank of Nigeria Governor, Godwin Emefiele. In a split decision (two-to-one) delivered on April 9, 2025, and outlined in a certified true copy obtained on Sunday, the appellate court overturned the lower court’s ruling and directed a retrial of the matter at the Federal High Court. The Federal High Court in Lagos had, on November 1, 2024, approved an application by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for the permanent forfeiture of Emefiele’s properties. The affected assets included two fully detached duplexes at No. 17B, Hakeem Odumosu Street, Lekki Phase 1; an undeveloped plot measuring 1,919.592 square metres at Oyinkan Abayomi Drive (formerly Queens Drive), Ikoyi; a bungalow at No. 65A Oyinkan Abayomi Drive, Ikoyi; and a four-bedroom duplex at No. 12A Probyn Road, Ikoyi, all in Lagos. Other forfeited properties were an industrial complex under construction on 22 plots in Agbor, Delta State; eight uncompleted apartments on a 2,457.60 square metre plot at No. 8A Adekunle Lawal Road, Ikoyi; and a fully detached duplex on a 2,217.87 square metre plot at No. 2A Bank Road, Ikoyi. The order also included the forfeiture of \$2,045,000 and share certificates in Queensdorf Global Fund Limited. The EFCC had maintained that the assets were suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activities. However, Emefiele, through his lead counsel Olalekan Ojo (SAN), challenged the forfeiture and filed an appeal. The anti-graft agency was the sole respondent in the appeal, marked CA/LAG/CV/1051/24. The appellant raised five issues for determination. “Whether the trial judge adequately evaluated the totality of the affidavit evidence before granting the EFCC’s motion for the final forfeiture of the listed properties. “Whether the trial judge erred in not holding that the appellant had established an interest in the listed properties, thereby warranting a refusal of the forfeiture application. “Whether it was proper to dismiss the appellant’s motion for a stay of proceedings in both the civil and criminal cases against the appellant. “Whether the trial court ought to have struck out the EFCC’s counter-affidavit for not being provided for under Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud Act and whether the trial judge was correct in declining jurisdiction to entertain the appellant’s application for a stay of proceedings,” the appellant stated.