Ecobank Asks Appeal Court to Set Aside N72bn Judgement

•Writes CJN, BoB, accuses Olanipekun of abuse of court process

Wale Igbintade

Ecobank Nigeria Limited has asked the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, to set aside the judgement of Justice Muhammad Lima of the Federal High Court in Lagos, in which he had ordered the bank to pay Honeywell Flour Mills Plc the sum of N72 billion.

The bank vowed to challenge the verdict.

Justice Muhammad Lima had in his judgement ordered Ecobank Plc to pay Honeywell Flour Mills Plc N72 billion over an illegal ex-parte order obtained by the bank against the group’s assets.

The court held that the plaintiff (Honeywell Flour Mills) was denied the use of funds in his account based on the ex parte order granted in favour of the Defendant.

Dissatisfied with the judgement, Ecobank in its Notice of Appeal filed by its lawyer, Mr. Kunle Ogunba, prayed the court to stay the execution of the judgment pending the hearing and final determination of the applicant’s appeal lodged against the said judgment pending at the Court of Appeal, Lagos Judicial Division.

The appellant is also asking for, “an order restraining the Respondent (Honeywell Flour Mills Plc) whether by itself, its servant(s), agent(s), privies, assigns or any person(s) howsoever called or described, acting under the actual, implied or clear authority of the Plaintiff/ Respondent, from taking advantage of the judgment or any enforceable/executable orders of this court delivered on 18th July, 2023 in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/1554/2018, pending the hearing and final determination of the appeal lodged against the judgement.”

Ecobank is also seeking  “an order of  the court restraining the Deputy Sheriff of the Federal High Court, the Bailiff of the Court below and those of the Federal and State High Courts, the Nigerian Police Force or any other law enforcement agency from assisting the respondent herein from enforcing or taking advantage of the judgment or any enforceable/executable orders of the Court delivered on 18th July 2023, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal and for such further or other orders as the court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.”

The appellant in its Notice of Appeal raised fundamental and recondite issues of law, stating that if the judgment of this lower court was enforced against it, the decision of the Court of Appeal will be rendered nugatory, and same will annihilate the existence of the Applicant and cause panic in the economy.

The appellant stated that the lower court judge erred in law when he assumed jurisdiction to determine the respondents’ claim at the lower court and consequently dismissed the appellant’s Notice of Preliminary Objection filed on 16th October 2018, on the sole ground that the respondent’s cause of action for damages bordered on banker customer relationship which both the Federal High Court and State High Court share concurrent jurisdiction to entertain.

“The learned trial Judge erred in law when he assumed jurisdiction to determine the respondent’s claim at the lower court and consequently dismissed the appellant’s Notice of Preliminary Objection filed on 29th March 2023 on the ground that the Respondent’s cause of action is not related to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in SC CV/210 2021.

 “The Learned trial Judge erred when he delivered its Judgment outside the 90 days prescribed by the provisions of 294 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and consequently occasioned a miscarriage of Justice against the Appellant,” he said.

Consequently, it prayed the court to set aside the Judgment delivered on the 18th day of July 2023.

Meanwhile, counsel to Ecobank in the alleged Honeywell debt recovery saga, Mr. Kunle Ogunba (SAN), has dragged the law firm of Wole Olanipekun & Co. before the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) and the Body of Benchers(BoB).

Ogunba urged the NJC & BoB to probe the law firm’s role in the matter of “Shares belonging to Honeywell Group Ltd, Honeywell Flour Mills Plc, Anchorage Ltd, Siloam Global Services Ltd and Dr. Oba Otudeko in FBN Holdings Plc or in any other entity.”

He accused Wole Olanipekun & Co of among others, “unprofessionalism/abuse of the final judgment of the Supreme Court” and “Persistent and constant abuse of process of court”.

Ogunba, in the July 18, letter, also addressed to the Managing Director, FBN Holdings Ltd, claimed the law firm filed a fresh action to relitigate the matter of Honeywell’s debt already settled by the Supreme Court.

He referenced an exchange of letters between his firm, Kunle Ogunba & Associates and Wole Olanipekun and & Co.

The SAN said: “We have just been served copy of a correspondence of the 14th instant from the firm of Wole Olanipekun & Co. in response to ours of the 12th instant as regards the above subject and we are now convinced beyond all previous doubts that the highly esteemed law firm of Wole Olanipekun & Co. will palpably stop at nothing to despoliate the final judgment of the Supreme Court in a dispute that raged for the better part of eight years as would be shown anon particularly in the light of the “fresh action” {in SUIT NO. FHC/L/CS/352/2023} it has filed at the Federal High Court, in Lagos to palpably relitigate the same subject matter.

 “Clearly, the response of the firm of Wole Olanipekun & Co. has departed from its previous position that the Supreme Court could not have, and, indeed, did not grant an award claim in favour of the bank and has unilaterally codified a phantom unanimity of position that entity and personality who undoubtedly guaranteed the facilities are not parties before the Court and that a certain figure was never mentioned when the Supreme Court held that the “Debtor must pay all the debts that have accrued under the loan contract.

“Indeed, if that position is true for all intents and purposes, the question is why the necessity for a “fresh action” on behalf of the judgment debtors necessitating a counter-claim on our part?”

He argued that a careful analysis of the claim as presented in the “fresh action” showed “vividly that the new action at the lower court is a frontal attack on the Supreme Court judgment because while the Supreme Court has previously held (at page 39 of its judgment) that: ‘The Respondent being the owner of the money dues as debts from the Appellants can decide to waive its right to recover all the debts due to it from each Appellant. But it cannot be compelled to waive a contractual right.