A-Court reserve ruling in Honeywell Vs Ecobank suit
(Nigeria) The Court of Appeal sitting in Lagos has reserved
judgment in the appeal by Honeywell Flour Mills’ appeal against the ex-parte
orders granted by Justice Mohammed Yunusa of the High Court, Lagos in favour of
Ecobank Nigeria Limited.
Lead counsel to Honeywell Flour Mills, Chief Wole
Olanipekun, SAN, at the resumes hearing in the appeal on Monday, reiterated the
business of the day, stating that the matter was for hearing of pending
applications and the appeal.
Olanipekun reminded the court that Justice John Tsoho of the
Federal High Court, heard the ex-parte
application and refused same because of the pending suit before Justice
Mohammed Idris as well as the fact that the documents attached to the motion
showed that the alleged debt was in dispute.
He stated that Ecobank was thereafter, directed to put
Honeywell Flour Mills Plc on notice. However, instead of putting Honeywell
Flour Mills Plc on notice as directed by Justice Tsoho, Ecobank filed another
winding up petition before Justice Mohammed Yunusa in exactly repetitive terms
as the one before Justice Tsoho.
Ecobank also exhibited the same documents as the ones in the
matter before Tsoho in which he had refused to grant the ex-parte order.
He argued that the ex-parte order was against Order 4 of
winding up rules that there cannot be an ex-parte injunction in a winding up
application.
Olanipekun prayed the court to vacate the order exeparte
made my Justice Yunusa of the lower court (Federal High Court) as the order has
paralyzed the operations of the company and the livelihood of over 5,000
Nigerians employed by Honeywell.
He stated that the company has been subjected to unfair
restrictions using the instrumentality of the court. He enjoined the court to
treat the matter as an ‘’SOS’’.
Counsel to Ecobank, Mr. Kunle Ogunba, SAN, opposed the
appeal.
He prayed the court to allow a preliminary objection, strike
out the appeal, adopt the argument contained in his reply brief and rule on the
cross appeal.
After hearing arguments and submissions from both counsels,
the Justices reserved judgment on the matter.
A date for ruling would subsequently be communicated to both
parties.
Comments
Post a Comment