The Federal High Court in Lagos has dismissed a petition seeking the dissolution of the Incorporated Trustees of Live Seed Christian Church of God, ruling that the petitioners failed to provide credible evidence to justify winding up the church.
Justice Akintayo Aluko delivered the judgment in Suit No: FHC/L/CP/1981/2022, on January 5, 2026.
The petition was filed by trustees Obiezughara Justin and Obiezughara Sophie, through their lawyer, Chioma Anumba, against the Incorporated Trustees of Live Seed Christian Church of God, Ugboke Adanemem and Ugboke Abigail, as first to third respondents respectively.
The two petitioners asked the court to dissolve the church on grounds of alleged mismanagement, oppressive conduct by co-trustees, and refusal to hold statutory and general meetings.
In the petition, the claimants, who are trustees of the church, urged the court to compel the second and third respondents to disclose the financial state of the church and render a detailed account of its income and expenditure from March 20, 2022, to the date of judgment.
The petitioners claimed that they had contributed substantial personal funds to acquire land and construct the church building.
They alleged that the co-trustees, Ugboke Adanemem and Ugboke Abigail, refused to allow statutory or general meetings of the church, mismanaged its affairs, and applied church income for personal use without rendering proper accounts.
They also sought the refund of N4,607,350, which the 1st petitioner said he advanced for the purchase of church property on Ganiyu Adekunle Street, Pacific Estate, Akesan, Lagos.
Additionally, the petitioners asked the court to make orders relating to the distribution of the church’s assets in the event of its winding up or dissolution, in line with the provisions governing incorporated trustees under the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020.
The petitioners further argued that the relationship between trustees had irretrievably broken down, making it impossible to convene meetings and manage the church properly.
In their counter-affidavit, the respondents, through their counsel, Dr Yemi Omodele, denied all allegations of mismanagement.
They stated that statutory and general meetings were duly held.
They also contended that the funds used for land acquisition were derived from church donations, tithes, and offerings, and not loans from the petitioners.
The respondents accused the 1st petitioner of withholding vital church documents, including the church’s CAC registration papers, title deeds, minutes of meetings, receipts, accounts books, and attendance registers.
They argued that the petitioners had no constitutional authority to dissolve the church, and that the petition was frivolous, self-contradictory, and amounted to an abuse of court process.
After evaluating the evidence presented by both parties, Justice Aluko noted that the petitioners had failed to establish any of the grounds for dissolution under Section 850(2) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020, which provides that a corporate body may only be dissolved if its objectives have been fulfilled, it exists for a specified period that has expired, it has become illegal, or it is just and equitable to dissolve it.
“All the allegations made by the petitioners were effectively denied and controverted by the respondents,” Justice Aluko held.
The judge also relied on Exhibit C, a joint agreement executed by the first petitioner and the second respondent on June 15, 2013, which showed that funds for the church property were realised from tithes, offerings and donations from members and friends of the church.
He added, “The petitioners failed to controvert the specific allegations that the petitioner kept away certain documents belonging to the first respondent, which include minutes of meetings of the first respondent.
“Exhibit C, which is a copy of a joint agreement executed by the first petitioner and second respondent on June 15, 2013, show that the first respondent received funds from tithes and offerings and donations/contributions from friends and members of the church from which the first respondent landed property was paid for.”
