….As Garnishee Proceedings Adjourned
The Magistrate Court of Enugu State has adjourned further hearing in garnishee proceedings against Lifeplus Foundation International and its representatives, Dr. Samson Adeniran (President) and Mrs. Helen Ikekonwu (Enugu State Coordinator).
The adjournment follows a judgment that ordered the defendants to refund over N7.6 million to members of the Enugu Mushroom Farmers Association.
At Wednesday’s sitting, counsel to the plaintiffs informed the court that he had received filings from some banks listed in the garnishee order. He explained that some of the banks claimed the defendants were not their customers and requested an adjournment to study the documents.
The court subsequently fixed September 16, 2025, for further action.
The garnishee proceedings stem from a ruling delivered on June 25, 2025, by Chief Magistrate Eze Chinyere Getrude, who declared illegal the business operations of Lifeplus Foundation International.
According to the judgment, “a declaration is hereby made declaring illegal and ultra vires the objective of the business venture undertaken by the Defendants through Lifeplus Foundation International.”
The court further ordered the defendants “to jointly and severally refund to the Plaintiffs the sum of N7,685,000 (Seven Million, Six Hundred and Eighty Five Thousand Naira) only, being the sum wrongfully collected from the Plaintiffs.”
In addition, the judgment directed the defendants to pay N2 million as costs, and a post-judgment interest of 10 percent per annum until the sum is fully paid.
Chief Magistrate Eze also rejected the farmers’ claim of N5 million as general damages for psychological trauma, noting that, “in action primarily for recovery of money or restitution, general damages are not awarded unless special circumstances are shown.”
The case was brought by mushroom farmers led by committee chairman Gogo Eze, who accused the defendants of luring them into paying money for mushroom seeds after training in 2023, but failing to supply the products or refund the funds.
During trial, one of the defendants admitted in cross-examination that they collected the monies but never delivered the seeds. In dismissing their defense, the court held that “their obligation to refund did not arise merely on the future date. It arose when the original transaction failed and was later confirmed in writing.”
