The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), sitting in Bwari, has ordered the grounding of a disputed aircraft linked to NG Eagle Airline Limited and restrained parties from selling, transferring or tampering with two aircraft at the centre of a $5.3 million transaction dispute.
Justice M. A. Madugu delivered the ruling on February 26, 2026, granting substantial interlocutory relief sought by Rekers Engineering & Construction Limited against Galactic Aviation Limited, Mr. Abdullahi Ahmed, NG Eagle Airline Limited and the Minister for Aviation and Aerospace Development.
The claimant had through his counsel, Mr Taiwo Hassan (SAN) approached the court seeking preservatory orders to restrain further flights and commercial operations involving two Embraer aircraft pending determination of the substantive suit.
Specifically, the company asked the court to ground the Embraer EMB-145MP aircraft and prevent the sale, marketing or further dealing with both the EMB-145MP and EMB-145LR aircraft, which it claimed remained unpaid for after delivery.
In a 57-paragraph affidavit deposed to by its Managing Director, Umar Sheriff Lawan, the claimant maintained that it was the legal owner of the aircraft and had entered into an Aircraft Sale and Purchase Agreement dated August 28, 2024, with the first and second defendants.
According to the claimant, the agreed purchase price for the aircraft was $5.3 million approximately N8.5 billion with an initial payment of N3 billion and the balance payable within 30 days.
The claimant alleged that despite delivering the aircraft, the defendants failed to pay the outstanding balance, re-registered the aircraft in their names and commenced commercial operations through NG Eagle Airline Limited, generating revenue while the claimant’s funds remained tied down.
It further alleged that parts from the EMB-145LR aircraft were dismantled and used to keep the EMB-145MP operational, a development it argued compromised safety and reduced the value of the second aircraft.
The company also told the court that mediation efforts involving aviation regulators led to proposed resolutions, including return of the unpaid aircraft and a payment plan, but these were not implemented.
However, the defendants opposed the application. In a counter-affidavit deposed to by Adamu Haruna Zemo, Head of Quality and Safety of Galactic Aviation Limited, the defendants argued that the aircraft were purchased on the understanding they were airworthy but that inspection revealed defects.
They claimed the EMB-145LR aircraft was returned due to defects, while the EMB-145MP required repairs costing about $1.2 million before it was put into service.
The defendants also insisted that re-registration was done lawfully with the claimant’s consent, denied removing parts from the second aircraft and maintained that the airline operates the aircraft commercially as a lessee.
They further contended that the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority investigated the claimant’s petition, found the allegations baseless and cleared the aircraft to resume operations.
Counsel for the defendants argued that any loss suffered by the claimant was monetary and compensable by damages, warning that grounding the aircraft would disrupt commercial operations and affect the flying public.
In resolving the dispute, Justice Madugu held that a single issue was determinative whether the claimant satisfied the legal requirements for the grant of interlocutory injunction.
The judge reiterated that interlocutory injunction is an equitable and discretionary remedy aimed at preserving the subject matter of litigation pending trial.
The judge relied on established principles, including the need to show a legal right, existence of a serious question to be tried, inadequacy of damages as compensation and where the balance of convenience lies.
The court held that the dispute raised real and substantial issues, including whether title to the aircraft passed before full payment, the legality of re-registration, the right to continued commercial use pending payment and allegations of removal of parts.
According to the judge, these questions were not frivolous but constituted triable issues requiring preservation of the subject matter.
The court found that the claimant demonstrated a triable right deserving protection and a real risk that refusal of an injunction could render any eventual judgment nugatory through alteration or dissipation of the aircraft.
Justice Madugu therefore ruled that damages alone might not be an adequate remedy in the circumstances and that the balance of convenience favoured preservatory relief.
Consequently, the court restrained the first, second and third defendants from operating, flying or deploying the EMB-145MP aircraft for commercial service pending determination of the suit.
The court also barred the defendants from selling, transferring, leasing, exporting or otherwise dealing with both aircraft and prohibited removal, dismantling or tampering with any components, engines, records or parts.
In addition, the Minister for Aviation and Aerospace Development was directed to notify the Nigerian Airspace Management Agency and the NCAA of the orders for compliance, limited strictly to the aircraft in dispute.
The court noted the claimant’s undertaking as to damages, which will bind the company should the injunction later be found unwarranted.
The court has therefore adjourned to April 14, 2026 for continuation of the matter.
