Debt: Access Bank takes over Seplat, challenges Appeal Court decision on interim order

By Onyewuchi Ojinnaka

Access Bank has taken over the corporate office of Seplat Petroleum Development Company Limited over a debt, consequent upon a court order. This was disclosed by the Bank’s receiver-manager Kunle Ogunba (SAN), on Monday

According to the bank, the action followed a ruling by Justice Rilwan Aikawa of the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos which granted it leave to take over the corporate offices of Seplat and to freeze its accounts over the loan obtained by Cardinal Drilling Services Limited.

The loan, according to the bank, was utilised by Seplat.

Access Bank also stated that it had filed a notice of appeal at the Supreme Court to challenge the decision by the Lagos Division of Court of Appeal which upturned and suspended the interim order made by Justice Aikawa.

The bank, through its counsel, Mr Ogunba, expressed dissatisfaction with the Appeal Court decision. It contended that the learned justices erred in law when they suspended the interlocutory orders, thereby treating the substantive appeal at the interlocutory stage.

Further in challenging the decision of Appeal Court, Ogunba said he had also filed a motion for a stay of execution of the Appeal Court verdict on his client’s behalf.

Recall that Justice Aikawa, in his ruling delivered on December 24, 2020, restrained Seplat and other defendants from tampering in any way with the company’s assets until the final determination of the suit filed against it by the bank.

The court further granted an order directing the Assistant Inspector-General of Police, the Commissioner of Police and other officers in Lagos “to assist the receiver-manager in his lawful duties”. The order was executed.

But opposing the application, Seplat’s lawyers raised several issues, including whether the first defendant (Seplat) was privy to or is the actual beneficiary of the loan in contention.

The lawyers further raised issues as to the relationship between Seplat and Cardinal Drilling Services Limited (second defendant), the roles of Dr Ambrose Orjiako and Kalu Nwosu (third and fourth defendants), as well as the status of the loan itself  vis-avis  whether it was hinged on fixed assets or floating debenture or both.

While granting Access Bank’s application, Justice Aikawa said: “In my view, all these are issues which touch the substance of the case and should therefore be reserved for substantive trial”.

“It is my opinion that an attempt to delve into any of them at this stage has the potential and danger of determining substantive issues at this interlocutory stage, a tendency which has been frowned upon by the appellate courts.”

Justice Aikawa noted that the plaintiff’s application was primarily intended to secure assets of the defendant within the court’s jurisdiction, adding that “the plaintiff displayed its fear that the defendant will dispose of their assets” if the order is not made.

The court also took into consideration the bank’s undertaking to pay damages for injury or losses occasioned to the defendants if it is later discovered that the application upon which the order is based is “frivolous” or “a sham”.

 “There is no evidence of suppression of any material facts by the plaintiff in this application.” the judge held.

There were reports that Seplat wrote a petition against Ogunba alleging that the SAN misled the court and did not provide “documentary information exhibited to the affidavit sustaining that Seplat used Cardinal Drilling as a ‘vehicle’, ‘smokescreen’, ‘decoy’, or ‘shell company’.

When this was put to Ogunba, he said he had not been officially notified of the purported petition and that the actions he took on his client’s behalf were based on the ruling.

“The petition, if any, has no leg to stand because all the issues they raised were brought before the court and the judge affirmed our position and granted the application. The judge held that no materials facts were suppressed.

“Seplat should rather liquidate its debt rather than attempting to intimidate me for doing my job, if indeed they wrote the purported petition as reported”, the senior lawyer added.

admin:
Related Post