A bitter ownership dispute between Chinese business partners at Crown Ceramics Nigeria Limited has escalated into a complex legal and corporate battle involving the courts, the police, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the Corporate Affairs Commission and the Office of the Vice President.
The dispute centres on four majority shareholders who collectively hold about 65 percent of the company and Chen Dongfeng, the company’s managing director, who the majority shareholders say owns approximately eight percent of the business.
The majority shareholders allege that despite holding the controlling stake, they have effectively been shut out of the company since March 2025. They claim they have been denied access to the factory, financial records, bank accounts and important corporate decisions...READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE .
According to documents connected to the dispute, the majority shareholders have also alleged that requests to inspect the company’s accounts, review financial and operational records, conduct audits, hold board meetings and receive profit distributions were repeatedly obstructed.
They further allege that Dongfeng has exercised effective control over the company’s finances, banking arrangements, factory operations and corporate records despite being a minority shareholder.
The disagreement has resulted in court proceedings in Abeokuta and Lagos, with both sides presenting competing arguments over the management and ownership of the company.
The majority shareholders previously approached the Federal High Court in Abeokuta seeking orders aimed at restricting transactions involving company funds and challenging what they described as Dongfeng’s control of the business.
Dongfeng, however, has challenged the actions of the majority shareholders, arguing among other things that a meeting held in March 2025 was conducted without the statutory notice required under Nigeria’s Companies and Allied Matters Act.
He has asked the court to invalidate the meeting and any resolutions allegedly reached during it, while also seeking protection of his rights as a director and shareholder.
The majority shareholders have maintained that no court order has expressly prevented them from accessing the company or participating in its management. In April 2026, a High Court in Abuja reportedly issued an interim order concerning their access to the company’s premises and directed the Inspector General of Police to provide security to facilitate compliance.
The dispute has also taken a criminal dimension following allegations of financial misconduct made against Dongfeng and others. In a petition submitted to the EFCC, the majority shareholders alleged that about N40 billion may have been diverted, withdrawn, transferred or otherwise misappropriated since March 2025.
The allegations include claims involving company revenue, procurement transactions, labour expenses, reimbursements, cash withdrawals and alleged transfers of funds across borders.
The shareholders have called for an investigation of the company’s financial records and banking transactions, as well as the recovery of any funds that may be found to have been unlawfully diverted.
However, Dongfeng’s legal representatives have strongly denied the allegations, describing them as false, unsubstantiated and connected to matters that are already before the courts.
The dispute has also drawn allegations involving some company employees. The majority shareholders have accused several workers of interfering with the company’s management and allegedly preventing officials from carrying out certain regulatory activities at the factory.
The shareholders have appealed for intervention from the Office of the Vice President, seeking assistance with access to the company, protection for the investors and investigations into their allegations.
They also claim that they invested more than $25 million in the company and have been unable to effectively participate in its management despite their majority ownership.
The legal representatives of Dongfeng have urged that the matter be allowed to proceed through the courts, arguing that disputed allegations should not be treated as established facts while judicial proceedings remain ongoing.
For now, the ownership and management dispute remains unresolved, with multiple legal proceedings and regulatory complaints continuing. The allegations concerning the company’s finances have not been independently established, and the final outcome will depend on evidence presented before the relevant authorities and courts.
