Vehicle Owner Seeks Release of Impounded Truck as Agency Cites Need for Government Approval
There was tension in Owerri, the Imo State capital, on Monday, October 26, 2026, following allegations that the Imo Signage and Advertisement Agency (IMSAA) had failed to comply with a High Court order directing the immediate release of a vehicle belonging to Mr. Henry Chinagorom Ibeh, who operates under the business name A.G. Global Nigeria Limited.
The vehicle, bearing Lagos registration number JJJ 35 YM, was reportedly impounded by IMSAA and had allegedly remained in the agency’s custody weeks after the court issued an order on September 16, 2026, directing its release.
The development attracted the attention of some youths who gathered at the IMSAA office along Okigwe Road, Owerri, on Monday to express concern over what they described as the continued detention of the vehicle despite the court’s directive.
The youths questioned the circumstances surrounding the impoundment, arguing that disputes involving regulatory agencies should be handled in accordance with the law to avoid unnecessary hardship for business owners and discourage investment in Imo State.
A Certified True Copy (CTC) of the court order made available to journalists indicated that the suit involved Mr. Henry Chinagorom Ibeh, trading as A.G. Global Nigeria Limited, as the plaintiff/applicant, while IMSAA, its Manager, Hon. Chibuzor Umunnakwe, the Attorney-General of Imo State, and the Governor of Imo State were listed as defendants.
According to the court document, the plaintiff/applicant filed a motion ex parte on September 15, 2026, seeking, among other reliefs, an order treating the application as one of extreme urgency and directing the immediate release of the vehicle and the goods contained therein.
Following submissions by counsel to the plaintiff/applicant, P.A. Onwukaike, Esq., the court issued an order directing the defendants to release the vehicle forthwith.
The relevant portion of the order reads:
“The Defendants are hereby ordered to release forthwith Plaintiff/Applicant’s vehicle with Registration Number: Lagos JJJ 35 YM with the goods contained therein.”
The court further fixed September 23, 2026, as the return date for a report on compliance with the order.
However, according to information made available to journalists, the vehicle was still in IMSAA’s custody as of Monday, October 26, raising questions about the circumstances surrounding the continued detention and whether the directive had been complied with.
Further information gathered by journalists indicated that IMSAA officials reportedly maintained that the vehicle was connected to a debtor identified as Unilever.
However, A.G. Global Nigeria Limited was said to have presented documents and other evidence in support of its claim of ownership of the vehicle.
It was also gathered that Mr. Ibeh had earlier paid the relevant signage and advertisement fees covering the 2026 period. Copies of documents said to be evidence of the payments were made available to journalists.
Reacting to the development, one of the youths who questioned the basis for retaining the vehicle argued that the owner should not be made to bear the consequences of an alleged default by another company.
The youth queried why Mr. Ibeh should suffer for an alleged offence attributed to Unilever, insisting that the presence of a company’s sticker on a vehicle did not, in itself, establish ownership of the vehicle.
The argument, according to the youth, underscored the need for the agency to establish the relevant facts before taking enforcement action against a vehicle reportedly belonging to another business operator.
Another issue raised by persons familiar with the matter was that the vehicle was reportedly conveying perishable goods when it was impounded.
The prolonged detention of the vehicle, they said, had raised concerns about possible losses and the potential economic consequences for the owner if the goods deteriorated as the items or goods involved are all perishable products impounded before the vehicle was released will definitely destroy for the public consumption and the only panacea for the agency to procure the proceeds for the Imo State government usage.
The development has consequently generated questions about the circumstances of the impoundment, the ownership dispute and the steps taken by the parties to resolve the matter following the court’s directive.
When contacted, a staff member of IMSAA, who declined to have his name published, reportedly told journalists that the agency could release the vehicle only after obtaining approval from the Imo State Government.
The reported position has raised further questions about the administrative process being followed by the agency, particularly in view of the court order directing the release of the vehicle.
However, the staff member’s statement, as relayed to journalists, does not by itself establish the agency’s full legal position or explain whether any further court proceedings or legal steps have taken place since the order was issued.
As of press time, the dispute remained unresolved, with attention focused on the vehicle’s release and the steps the parties might take to settle the underlying disagreement.
The development has also renewed calls for regulatory agencies to ensure that enforcement actions are carried out within the confines of the law, with due regard for court orders, legitimate business interests and the protection of property rights.
Stakeholders have continued to emphasise the importance of transparent administrative procedures and respect for the rule of law in promoting public confidence, protecting businesses and sustaining investor confidence in Imo State.
As of press time, no detailed official response from IMSAA’s management or the Imo State Government had been made available to clarify their positions on the dispute and the reported non-compliance with the court order.