Crown Ceramics: What to Know about the Chinese Shareholders Dispute over Control of Nigerian Company
A dispute between Chinese shareholders of Crown Ceramics Nigeria Limited has escalated into multiple court cases, petitions to government agencies and a disagreement over who should control the company’s factory, finances and management.
The dispute involves majority shareholders who collectively say they own 65% of the company and Managing Director Chen Dongfeng, whom they identify as holding about 8%.
The majority shareholders allege that, despite their combined stake, they have been excluded from the company’s factory, financial records, bank accounts and decision-making since March 2025.
Dongfeng, through his lawyer, has denied the allegations and argued that matters concerning the company are already before the courts and should be resolved through the judicial process.
Here is what we know about the Crown Ceramics dispute.
Who are the shareholders involved?
The dispute centres on Chinese nationals who are shareholders and directors of Crown Ceramics Nigeria Limited.
The majority shareholders identified in court documents are Zhang Kefeng, Zhang Linshuang, Liu Zhengyu and Liao Yuzhen. They collectively claim a 65% stake in the company.
Chen Dongfeng, who serves as the company’s managing director, is identified by the majority shareholders as holding about 8%.
The disagreement is therefore not simply about ownership percentages. It has developed into a wider dispute over who has effective control of the company and its operations.
According to documents reported by Premium Times, the majority shareholders say they have remained the controlling shareholders but have been unable to exercise that control.
How did the Crown Ceramics dispute begin?
The dispute became particularly serious in 2025 when the majority shareholders alleged that Dongfeng had taken physical and operational control of the company despite being a minority shareholder.
They said they were denied access to the company’s factory, financial records, bank accounts and corporate decision-making.
The shareholders also alleged that requests to inspect accounts, review operational reports, conduct audits, hold board meetings and receive profit distributions were ignored or obstructed.
The disagreement eventually moved into the courts.
Crown Ceramics itself was registered in 2014 to engage in importing, exporting, manufacturing and general contracting.
What happened in court?
The first major court action mentioned in the report was filed at the Federal High Court in Abeokuta in 2025.
The majority shareholders filed a suit after alleging that Dongfeng had taken physical control of the company.
Among the reliefs they sought was an order preventing banks from honouring transactions initiated by Dongfeng after a company board resolution directing financial institutions to deny him access to company funds.
Dongfeng subsequently filed another case in Lagos involving substantially similar questions about the management and control of Crown Ceramics.
The dispute also involved a proposed board meeting at which Dongfeng’s removal as a director was reportedly to be considered.
Dongfeng challenged the validity of a meeting allegedly held on March 1, 2025, arguing that he had not received the statutory notice required under the Companies and Allied Matters Act.
He asked the court to invalidate the meeting and any resolutions allegedly passed during it.
He also asked the court to prevent the other shareholders from implementing those resolutions or holding future meetings without properly notifying him.
What did the Abuja court order?
The dispute later reached the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory in Abuja.
In April 2026, the court granted an interim order restraining anyone from preventing the majority shareholders from accessing the company’s premises.
The court also directed the Inspector-General of Police to provide adequate security to facilitate compliance with the order.
The Police Directorate of Legal Services subsequently recommended that the Ogun State Commissioner of Police provide officers to implement the order.
However, the majority shareholders maintain that they remained unable to exercise effective control of the company.
Their lawyer, Sanusi Musa, alleged that some police officers were preventing them from accessing the factory.
These claims are disputed, and the wider control dispute remains before the courts.
Why did the police become involved?
The corporate dispute eventually spilled beyond the boardroom and courtrooms.
The shareholders have complained about access to the company’s factory and the role of security personnel at the premises.
In 2025, some Chinese directors also petitioned the Nigerian government over restricted access to the company’s factory in Igbesa, Ogun State.
A separate account from Chen Dongfeng disputed some of those claims, with the managing director saying the police had not sealed the factory and that operations had continued.
The competing accounts show that the disagreement has involved not only shareholders but also the police and other government institutions.
What is the ₦40 billion allegation?
The dispute took another turn when the majority shareholders submitted a petition to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on July 10, 2026.
They accused Dongfeng and others of financial misconduct, including alleged diversion and misappropriation of company funds, fraudulent transactions and concealment of corporate records.
According to the petition reported by Premium Times, the shareholders alleged that approximately ₦40 billion may have been diverted, withdrawn, transferred or otherwise misappropriated since March 2025.
The petition listed several alleged forms of misconduct, including payments involving suspected fictitious procurement arrangements, inflated labour costs, unsupported invoices, substantial cash withdrawals and alleged transfers to related companies.
The shareholders also alleged that financial, inventory and sales records had been withheld from them.
However, the ₦40 billion figure is an allegation contained in the petition, not an amount established by a court finding or independently verified by Premium Times.
What does Chen Dongfeng say?
Dongfeng has denied the allegations through his lawyer, Emeka Ekweozor.
According to the response reported by Premium Times, Dongfeng denies allegations of diversion, misappropriation, fraudulent transactions, concealment of corporate records and other economic offences.
His lawyer described the allegations as false and unsubstantiated.
He also argued that the issues are sub judice, meaning they are matters currently before the courts, and said it would be inappropriate to use media publicity to determine issues that should be decided through evidence and due process.
Premium Times said it could not independently verify the allegations against Dongfeng.
What other allegations have been made?
The dispute has also generated allegations involving company employees.
In a separate petition to the Inspector-General of Police, the company alleged that five employees interfered with the management of Crown Ceramics by obstructing directors from carrying out their responsibilities.
The petition also alleged that the employees prevented officials of the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) from entering the company premises during an investigation reportedly initiated following directives from the Office of the Vice President.
The petition called for an investigation and prosecution of the employees over their alleged actions.
These claims, like the financial allegations, remain allegations rather than established findings.
Why did the shareholders appeal to the Vice President?
The majority shareholders also sought intervention from Vice President Kashim Shettima, in his capacity as chairman of the Presidential Enabling Business Environment Council.
In their petition, they alleged that Dongfeng had taken actions involving company assets and corporate documents without their authorisation.
They also alleged that company assets, including landed property, production lines and machinery, had been used as collateral for loans obtained for another company.
The shareholders asked for government intervention to help restore their access to the company, protect their interests and facilitate investigations.
Dongfeng’s lawyer rejected the allegations and maintained that they are contested matters connected to ongoing court proceedings.
Where does the Crown Ceramics case stand now?
The dispute has not been finally resolved.
Cases involving the shareholders remain before courts in Abeokuta and Lagos, while the competing sides continue to present different accounts of who has the legal and operational authority to control Crown Ceramics.
The majority shareholders maintain that their combined 65% stake gives them controlling ownership but allege that they have been denied effective control of the company.
Dongfeng, meanwhile, disputes the allegations against him and has challenged the validity of some of the corporate decisions relied upon by the other shareholders.
The financial allegations are also yet to be established by a court.
For now, the Crown Ceramics dispute remains a corporate ownership and management battle that has expanded into litigation, police involvement, regulatory complaints and an EFCC petition.
The eventual resolution will depend on the evidence presented in the various proceedings and decisions by the relevant courts and authorities.