Compagnie Noga D'importation Et D'exportation SA v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd

Compagnie Noga D'importation Et D'exportation SA v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd

Abacha had waived any claim to privilege against self-incrimination regarding asset disclosure by failing to claim it in earlier affidavits and disclosures. Even if not waived, the privilege was not available as the risk of prosecution was neither real nor appreciable, and the relevant information was already...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Compagnie Noga d’Importation et d’Exportation S.A.; Defendant: Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd; Defendant: Mohammed Abacha; Defendant: Mr Bagudu; Defendant: Estate of the late General Abacha; Defendant: Mecosta; Defendant: Standard Alliance
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Commercial Fraud Claim / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Asset Disclosure and Variation of Freezing Orders
Outcome
Applications by Noga to curtail or further police withdrawals from frozen assets and to impose stricter controls on legal and living expenses are refused. No order is made against Bagudu due to his undertaking.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Privilege Against Self Incrimination, Asset Disclosure, Proprietary Claims, Living and Legal Expenses From Frozen Assets
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Fraud Freezing Injunctions Privilege Against Self Incrimination Asset Disclosure Proprietary Claims Living and Legal Expenses From Frozen Assets

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Compagnie Noga d’Importation et d’Exportation S.A.

Claimant

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd

Defendant

Mohammed Abacha

Defendant

Mr Bagudu

Defendant

Estate of the late General Abacha

Defendant

Mecosta

Defendant

Standard Alliance

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Fraud Claim / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Asset Disclosure and Variation of Freezing Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Abacha is entitled to claim privilege against self-incrimination to avoid asset disclosure
  2. 2 Whether the privilege has been waived
  3. 3 Whether the privilege is claimable in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

Abacha had waived any claim to privilege against self-incrimination regarding asset disclosure by failing to claim it in earlier affidavits and disclosures. Even if not waived, the privilege was not available as the risk of prosecution was neither real nor appreciable, and the relevant information was already public. There was no basis to curtail or further police withdrawals from frozen assets or to impose stricter controls on legal and living expenses. Bagudu's undertaking to replenish any sums withdrawn from proprietary assets was sufficient, and no further orders were warranted.

Court Disposition

Applications by Noga to curtail or further police withdrawals from frozen assets and to impose stricter controls on legal and living expenses are refused. No order is made against Bagudu due to his undertaking.

Orders

  • No curtailment or further policing of withdrawals from frozen assets for Abacha or Bagudu.
  • No additional policing regime imposed for legal or living expenses.