Alleged N4.6bn debt: Court orders taken over of a firm
*Federal High Court, Lagos
(Nigeria) A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has
restrained the management of Shoreline Power Company Ltd from interfering with
a receiver-manager, Taiwo Ogbara, appointed by Ecobank Nigeria Ltd over the
firm’s assets.
Justice Chuka Obiozor restrained the defendants, namely
Orikolade Karim, Tunde Karim, Yinka Karim, Marc Hasenclever and Graeme Stout,
from interfering with or obstructing Mr Ogbara in the course of his duties as
receiver-manager pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.
The judge granted an order of interim injunction restraining
the defendants or their agents from tampering with or disposing of the firm’s
assets and properties covered by a Deed of All Assets Debenture of March 18, 2013
between Ecobank and Shoreline Power Company, registered at the Corporate
Affairs Commission, CAC.
Justice Obiozor gave an order directing the
Inspector-General of Police and his men to assist the receiver-manager in
carrying out his duties over the firms properties and equipment.
He granted an order of interim mareva injunction restraining
all Nigerians banks from accepting or honouring any mandate or cheques
presented by the defendants for the withdrawal of any sum kept in Shoreline
Power Company’s account pending hearing of the motion on notice.
The banks were also directed to file within 48 hours the
company’s statement of account with them and to transfer such funds into a
receivership account as may be requested by the receiver-manager.
In a supporting affidavit to the ex-parte application, an
Ecobank staff member, Donatus Onoja, said Shoreline Power Company was indebted
to it to the tune of N4.6billion.
The bank said it wrote the firm to demand the payment of the
outstanding indebtedness but got no response.
It said despite receipt of the demand letter, the firm
“neither responded nor did it comply or display any genuine willingness to
fulfil its repayment obligations to the first applicant within the time so
prescribed.”
The bank said the firm utilised the loan and refused to
repay it, contrary to their agreement.
The case comes up on July 23, for hearing.
Comments
Post a Comment