Orlean Invest Africa Limited has formally appealed the judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja that ordered the seizure and forfeiture of a Bombardier BD-700 Global 6000 aircraft, based on the the acceptance of the Customs Duty Assessment of over N1 billion , saying the trial court presumed the figure to be correct without any evidential foundation.

The company insists that the decision was reached without evidence and amounts to a serious miscarriage of justice.

The firm argues that the interim order was granted on the basis of bare and unsubstantiated claims by the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS), and that the order was obtained through misrepresentation or concealment of material facts.

The company maintains that compelling legal and factual reasons to discharge the order were placed before the court but were wrongly ignored

The company has filed for a stay of execution of the Federal High Court judgment.

The notice of appeal, it was learnt, was filed on 23 January 2026 by the company’s lead counsel, Mr. Ama Etuwewe (SAN), a day after the Federal High Court delivered its ruling.

The appeal, now before the Court of Appeal, sets out seven grounds challenging both the factual findings and legal conclusions of the trial court.

At the heart of Orlean Invest Africa’s appeal is the argument that the Federal High Court wrongly concluded that the aircraft was imported into Nigeria by the company and remained in the country without payment of customs duties.

The appellants maintain that there was no evidence whatsoever before the court to support such a finding. They contend that the aircraft does not belong to Orlean Invest Africa Limited and that no proof was presented to establish ownership or importation by the company.

According to the appeal, the aircraft was flown into Nigeria strictly on a charter basis as a visiting aircraft and never remained permanently in the country.

The company further argues that the aircraft has at all times been registered on the Malta Aircraft Registry and was never transferred to Nigerian registration. It insists that unchallenged evidence before the trial court showed that the aircraft last entered Nigeria in 2018, contradicting the court’s conclusion that it was imported and remained in Nigeria.

Orlean Invest Africa says the judge substituted speculation for proof and delivered a decision unsupported by the record.

The appellants also challenge the order of final forfeiture, arguing that there was no evidence before the Federal High Court to justify condemning the aircraft to the Federal Government. They insist that the trial judge wrongly held them liable for customs duty on an aircraft they neither own nor imported, and that no law or evidence supports such liability.

A further ground of appeal contests the refusal of the trial court to set aside the ex-parte order of seizure and detention made in June 2025.

Orlean Invest Africa argues that the interim order was granted on the basis of bare and unsubstantiated claims by the Nigeria Customs Service, and that the order was obtained through misrepresentation or concealment of material facts. The company maintains that compelling legal and factual reasons to discharge the order were placed before the court but were wrongly ignored.

The appeal also challenges the acceptance of the customs duty assessment of over one billion naira, saying the trial court presumed the figure to be correct without any evidential foundation. In addition, Orlean Invest Africa contends that the trial judge wrongly held that the Nigeria Customs Service proved its case, despite what it describes as a complete absence of supporting evidence.

The company states that the entire judgement is against the weight of evidence presented during proceedings at the Federal High Court.

The firm is therefore seeking an order of the Court of Appeal allowing the appeal, setting aside the Federal High Court’s judgement delivered on 22 January 2026, and dismissing in full the Nigeria Customs Service’s application for forfeiture and condemnation of the aircraft.