Bolanle Olawale Babalakin
A Federal High Court in Lagos on Thursday fixed December 3 for its ruling on the applications by three firms: Homan Engineering Company, Stabilini Visinoni Limited and Resort International Limited and their promoter, Dr Wale Babalakin (SAN), asking the court to stay proceedings in the suits filed against them by Guaranty Trust Bank Plc.
Justice Mohammed Idris had fixed the date, following conclusion of arguments by lawyers to the parties.
GTB had filed two separate suits (FHC/L/CS/601/10 and FHC/L/CS/602/10) against the three firms and Babalakin, as the bank claimed that the defendants allegedly owed it N12.3bn debt, arising from outstanding balance of credit facilities it granted to them some years back.
But the defendants had filed different objections against the suits, challenging the propriety of the bank’s suits.
Lawyer to GTB, Mr. Kunle Ogunba (SAN), had urged the court to hear his client’s applications together with that of the defendants in the interest of justice and to save the time of the court.
But the lawyers to the defendants, Mr. Wale Akoni (SAN) and Mr. I. Layonu (SAN), urged the court to hear their objections on the grounds that their applications should take pre-eminence over others and be heard first.
In his ruling on the priority of the applications, Justice Idris held that he would first hear the defendant’s applications before attending to that of the plaintiff.
At the resumed hearing of the case on Thursday, Akoni informed the court on the need to stay proceedings in the matter, pending the determination of his clients’ appeal against the ruling of Justice Okon Abang on the appointment of Ogunba as receiver /manager.
He added that his clients’ three grounds of appeal raised very substantial issues of jurisdiction, saying that the development constituted special and exceptional circumstances for the grant of stay of proceedings.
He also faulted the argument of Ogunba that the appeal was defective, saying that he signed the notice of appeal.
According to Akoni, “The applicant has demonstrated that the court lack jurisdiction to sit over an incompetent process which the Supreme Court has held to be fundamentally defective.”
The GTB’s second suit centred on the writ of summons on the alleged N12.3bn debt as at November 30, 2009 just as Ogunba urged the court to enter the suit for hearing on the ‘undefended list’.
Regarding the second suit, the defendants had urged the court to strike out the matter and set aside the order of June 7, 2010 on the case.
But Ogunba had opposed the defendants’ applications for stay of proceedings, claiming that the matter was a receivership action which could not be stayed. He also claimed that the notice of appeal was incompetent
He argued that the development would help the defendants to place their assets beyond the reach of his client and the receiver/ manager appointed by the bank.
He said, “What the defendant/ applicant have done is to frustrate the desire of the plaintiff/ respondent to retrieve its depositors funds stuck with them.”
Source:http://www.punchng.com/Articl.aspx?theartic=Art201011190311231
No comments:
Post a Comment