Court to rule on jurisdiction June 17 as investment firm, MD sue Alhaji Dantata, others, over $44.5m debt
By Jude-Ken Ojinnaka
The issue of jurisdiction raised on the suit filed before a Lagos State High Court sitting in Ikeja by Nichole Integrated Investment Ltd and its Managing Director, Mr. Peter Imafidon Omokharo against an oil Mongul, Alhaji Sayyu Dantata, and his three companies, MRS Holdings Company Limited, MRS Oil Nigeria Plc, and Bestaf Trading Company Ltd will be determined on June 17.
In the said suit before Justice Latifat Folami, Nichole Integrated Investment Ltd and its Managing Director Omokharo (claimants) are claiming sum of US$47 million from Alhaji Dantata and his companies (defendants) as loan facility given to them which has remained unpaid.
According to the claim of the claimants, on August 5, 2009, they gave $47 million loan to Dantata and his companies to meet their shortfall towards acquisition of Chevron-Texaco Africa Holdings (Ivory Coast Operations)
READ ALSO:
Judiciary workers announce nationwide strike over fuel Subsidy removal
In the statement of claims filed before the court by the claimants’ counsel, Mr Dele Adesina (SAN), Dantata had already secured a $300 million facility from Union Bank over the same acquisition and therefore not ready for further exposure.
In order to assist the defendants, an Executive Director of Union Bank, Mr. Austen Obigwe introduced Omokharo, an investment expert to Alhaji Dantata to assist in facilitating the shortfall.
Claimants averred that after series of meetings and negotiations, both parties agreed on the following terms:
“That the defendants had resources to pay back the amount sought from the claimants.
In substantiating the above, Alhaji Dantata and second defendant, MRS Holdings Company Ltd stated that the Federal Government of Nigeria was indebted to the third defendant MRS Oil Nigeria PLC in the sum of N20 billion being an outstanding payment due from petroleum subsidies.
“That the $47 million loan facility will be settled by the first and second defendants upon the receipt by the third defendant, the N20 billion owed by the Federal Government.
“That parties further agreed that interest of 10 percent per annum would be paid to the claimants on the said $47 million.
They stated that upon this agreement, the first claimant, on August 5, ,2009 successfully transferred the sum of $44,516,000:00 to Chevron Africa Holdings Ltd through Coral Bureau Account with Union Bank Plc.
With this, Dantata went ahead to acquire the 60 percent of the Chevron-Texaco Africa Holdings.
However, things began to turn sour soon after when the defendants began to repay in piecemeal.
“In contravention of the clear promise, undertaking, and agreement by the defendants to stand by the agreement regarding payment and satisfaction of the loan facility, the defendants chose the path of a piecemeal and staggered repayment procedure to the extent that substantial amount of repayment still remains outstanding and unpaid despite several oral and written demands”, the claimants stated.
They averred that the defendants repaid only $21, 156,374:00 between January 2013 and July 10, 2017.
“The payments were received with respect to the principal loan facility leaving an outstanding sum of $23,359,626:00. All the repayments were made in Naira which were then converted to Dollars. The agreed interest of 10 percent has not been touched.
“Also every effort made by the claimants to ensure repayment, was frustrated by the defendants.
“Such efforts included issuing 57 promissory notes of $1 million amounting to $57 million but the defendants reneged after the notes were prepared by the claimants lawyers.
The claimants further averred that when the defendants retracted their position on the promissory notes, the first defendant again made a move towards the end of 2018 for a meeting which was held between the claimants, first, second defendants and Mr Austen Obigwe.
After extensive deliberations, it was agreed that the first defendant, on behalf of himself and other defendants, should transfer 200,000 square meters of the landed property of the fourth defendant at Lekki Free Trade Zone at the rate of $40, totalling $8 million as part payment of the debt.
Despite the fact that it was a proposition made by the defendants, they not only reneged, but also jerked up the price to $100 per square meter. The claimants still agreed, but like the promissory notes, the defendants reneged at the point of signing the agreement.
The claimants further said: “Altogether, the total repayment made by defendants stand at N3,332,469,616.54 which after being exchanged to dollars at different times and periods amount to $21,156,374.00 between the period of January 2013 to July 2017.
Consequently, claimants prayed the court to hold that the debt owed by the defendants amount to $23.3 million, payment of 10 percent interest on the sum of $44.5 million as agreed at the beginning of the loan, interest rate of 6 percent from the date of judgement, and N25 million general damages.
However, in the statement of defense filed by the defendants’ counsel, Olushola Abiloye, the defendants contend that the court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate on the suit on the following grounds:
“Assuming without conceding that the claimants have a cause of action against the defendants, their right of action has been extinguished by the Limitation Laws of Lagos State.
“The statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action against the defendants.
“The claimants lack the locus standi to institute the suit against the defendants.
The defendants therefore denied ever entering into any loan agreement with the claimants, calling their suit a “figment of their imagination”.
It averred in its statement of defense: “The second defendant was shocked to the marrow when it received the claimant’s letter dated March 21 wherein it alleged the existence of a loan in the sum of $47 million and demanded for the payment of the sum of $96.9 million being alleged debt plus interest owed by the second defendant”
The court fixed June 17 for ruling on the issue of jurisdiction.
