Connect with us

Judiciary

Med-View Airline in Trouble Over Debt

Published

on

A Petroleum distribution company Asharami Synergy Plc has filed a winding up petition before a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos Nigeria against Med-View Airline Plc, over inability of the Airline to pay a debt of N43,548,652.50.

   In a particulars of indebtedness accompanying the petition, Asharami Synergy Plc company alleged that, it supplied Med-View Airline Aviation fuel for the period January 2018 to August 2018 totalling N43,548,652.50,the debt became due for payment by 31st of August 2018 following which the petitioner made various demands and the Airline promise to pay but could  not.

   The parties held a meeting where it was agreed that by 28th February 2019 the Airline will pay the entire sum. After the meeting Jenifer Ugorji the team lead- Retail Sales and marketing of the petitioner  sent an e-mail to the Airline’s Chief Executive Officer/Managing Director Alhaji Muneer Bankole on the resolution of the meeting, but he did not respond to the e-mail ,Jenifer Ugorji then sent another e-mail to Serifat Olajide an accountant in the employment of the Airline, she responded that the managing Director is out of the country, but as soon as he comes back the Airline will commence payment of the debt.

         Thereafter, the respondent paid a paltry sum of N500, 000 out of the outstanding sum of N43,548,652.50.

       Following the inability of the Airline to pay the debt the petitioner briefed the law firm of Le Pestro Solicitors to demand for the payment of the debt due.

    Despite the various express demands by e-mail and letters made by the petitioner the Airline still failed, refused and neglected to liquidate its outstanding indebtedness to the petitioner till date.

       The petitioner stated further that the outstanding indebtedness of the Airline to the petitioner is colossal and has continue to attract interest and hardship to the petitioner.

       Consequently, the respondent is insolvent and unable to pay its debts. The petitioner therefore humbly prays as follows:

       That MED-VIEW AIRLINE PLC RC 604313 be wound up by the court under the provisions of section 409(1) and 410(1)(b) of company and allied Matters Act cap C20 laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.)

       However, in a counter affidavit against the petition sworn to by Serifat Olajide, she denies all the depositions of the petitioner and averred that the Airline knows a company called So Aviation limited as supplier of Aviation fuel and the company subsequently changed to the petitioner.

The transaction between the petitioner and the respondent started as far back as December, 2015.and prior to August, 2018.it was a smooth and mutually beneficial relationship between the parties as payment were made regularly and supplies were on mutual understanding.

      The presiding Judge Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke has adjourned for hearing.

Continue Reading

Judiciary

NJC sets up panel to investigate allegations against Osun Chief Judge

Published

on

By

 

 

The National Judicial Council, under the Chairmanship of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, has reportedly constituted a committee to investigate multiple allegations against Osun State Chief Judge, Hon. Justice Adepele Ojo.

In its 107th meeting on November 13 and 14, 2024, the NJC sanctioned five judicial officers for misconduct and recommended the formation of a committee to probe the various complaints against Justice Ojo.

At the heart of the allegations are claims that Justice Ojo has repeatedly failed to adhere to legal and ethical standards expected of her position.

A petition submitted to the NJC by the Concerned Citizens of Nigeria, Osun State Chapter, further outlined the gravity of the allegations.

The petition claims that Justice Ojo’s actions have violated both the spirit and the letter of the law. The group accuses her of gross abuse of office, breaches of professional ethics, and a blatant disregard for the rule of law, which they argue has led to a loss of public trust in the judiciary.

It would be recalled that Osun State Governor Ademola Adeleke had suspended Justice Ojo following a resolution by the State House of Assembly.

The resolution cited serious allegations of misconduct, abuse of power, corruption, and failure to uphold the rule of law.

Some of the allegations against Justice Ojo include, taking personal vengeance against judiciary staff, she dismissed several staff members who had shown courage in reporting her actions, creating a climate of fear and retaliation within the judiciary.


46
/ 100


Continue Reading

Judiciary

Oil Magnate, Akinduro Sues EFCC, Demands N5b For Unlawfully Declaring Him Wanted

Published

on

By

Dr. Henry Mobolaji Akinduro, Chairman/CEO of Global Signature Hotel and Total Grace Group Limited, has filed a N5 billion lawsuit against the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for allegedly declaring him wanted unlawfully.
In the suit filed on Wednesday at the Federal High Court, Lagos, Akinduro submitted that the EFCC declared him wanted without any form of judicial intervention, recourse to constitutional safeguards or order of court.
The EFCC on Friday, 11 October, 2024 at about 7.20pm on its official twitter handle, also known as ‘X’ declared the oil magnate ‘Wanted’. The businessman is praying the court to order the EFCC to remove his name from the wanted list published on the commission’s official website or any other related platform including Twitter (X).
Akinduro is seeking N5 billion as “general damages”.
On Monday 14 October, 2024, the businessman, via his counsel, Olalekan Ojo SAN had petitioned the Executive Chairman of the EFCC over the unconstitutional violation of his fundamental human rights to personal liberty and human dignity by the publication of his name on the list of wanted persons on the EFCC’s website.
Ojo averred in the petition that at all times preceding the said publication there was no order of any Court of competent jurisdiction authorizing the said publication and no charge had been preferred against our Client before any Court of law.
According to Akinduro’s Lawyer, the Commission had allegedly made the said illegal or unlawful publication declaring him wanted upon the prompting or instigation of one Mr. Femi Olushakin who had earlier written a petition against the oil magnate in respect of a N240 million contractual dispute between them —Messrs Olushakin and Akinduro.
He affirmed that disputes had arisen from the investment agreement entered into between the two men leading to Olushakin petitioning EFCC.
“Our Client (Akinduro) was invited by the Commission on 4th June, 2024 and he immediately responded via letter dated 5th June, 2024 notifying the Commission of his unavailability due to medical reasons. In the said letter, it was stated therein that our Client was out of the Country receiving medical attention. He subsequently provided assurances that he would be present at the Commission as soon as he was medically cleared to travel. It is pertinent at this juncture to chronicle the genesis of the subject matter which led to the declaration of our Client Wanted by the Commission,” Ojo stated.
The Counsel disclosed that there was a business transaction between Akinduro and Olushakin which was backed by a viable collateral which included Akinduro’s Global Signature Hotel worth N500 million, three (3) 60-Seater Yutong buses valued at over N240 million and a Toyota 4Runner SUV.
Ojo claimed that Olushakin has sold the three 60-Seater Yutong buses and currently drives around the city in the Toyota 4Runner SUV which were used as collateral by Akinduro.
“It is clear from the above that this is a purely civil business transaction with no element of criminality embedded in it. Mr. Femi Olushakin maliciously petitioned the Commission after selling the 60-Seater Yutong buses and currently using the Toyota 4runner SUV for his personal use,” he stated.
The Senior Lawyer added that despite Akinduro’s medical condition overseas, he has maintained close communication with the Commission.
“Our Client regularly sends his Legal Officer to the Commission, affirming his willingness and desire to appear before the Commission upon due confirmation of his being fit to travel by his doctors. There was no further request by the Commission inviting our Client before the unlawful publication.
“It is to be further noted that on 11 October, 2024, our Client’s Legal Officer was physically present at the office of the Commission around noon to submit a correspondence to the Commission and he also reassured the Operatives of the Commission of our Client’s desire and willingness to cooperate with the investigation by the Commission upon his arrival in Nigeria.
“It is regrettable that despite the repeated reassurances of our Client to cooperate with the investigation upon his arrival in Nigeria, the Commission proceeded to declare our Client ‘Wanted’ later that same day at about 7.20pm without an order of Court and in the absence of a valid charge in a Court of law.
“The Commission published our Client’s name and photograph depicting our Client as a fugitive from the law and branded him “WANTED” without any evidence of evading investigation. This action of the Commission has not only defamed our Client but also violated our Client’s right to freedom of movement without the order of the Courts.
“The Commission has also by the unlawful publication subjected our Client to public humiliation and ridicule thus causing our Client loss of personal and business relationships as well as reputational damage. It is our instruction that since the publication, our Client has been inundated with calls, Whatsapp messages from his business associates all over the world who had read the post expressing their disgust and dismay at the defamatory publication, and the said publication has also caused our Client emotional trauma and distress.”
Akinduro, through his lawyer, said he considered it imperatively necessary to put the records straight with a view to showing that the fraud allegations are trumped-up allegations aimed at causing incalculable damage to his hard earned but richly deserved reputation.
“It is pertinent to state that the petition against Dr. Henry Akinduro was an ignoble attempt to criminalize purely contractual disputes that had arisen from the investment agreement between Dr. Henry Akinduro and the Petitioner, Mr. Femi Olushakin,” he said.
Ojo stated that the commercial or contractual disputes had earlier been referred to the competent Court by the parties before Olushakin resorted to lodging the fraud allegations against the oil magnate for reasons best known to him.
“Indeed, with knowledge of this, Mr. Femi Olushakin through his
lawyers, as part of the originating processes filed towards the resolution of the dispute between the parties
in court, the Petitioner (the Defendant in the Civil Suit No I/87512024 at the State High Court, Ibadan Judicial Division, Oyo State of Nigeria) has filed a Counterclaim. Some of the reliefs set out in the Counter Claims are as follows:
– AN ORDER directing the Defendants to the Counter Claim to pay the sum of N250 million Naira only to the Counter Claimant, sum of which was invested by the Counter Claimant into the business of the Defendants to the Counter Claim (Dr. Henry Akinduro and co)
– AN ORDER directing the Defendants to the Counter Claim to pay the sum of N205,325,000 to the Counter Claimant being the Return on Investment (ROI) to be paid to the Counter Claimants by the Defendant to the Counter Claimants.
– AN ORDER directing the Defendants to the Counter Claim to pay the sum of N52.5 million to the Counter Claimant (Mr. Femi Olushakin) being the Return on Investment (ROI) to be paid to the Counter Claimant by the Defendants to the Counter Claim on the investment of N100 million only).
– An Order directing the Defendants to the Counter Claim to pay the sum of N10 million only) to the Counter Claimant being the shortfall or deficit.
“One would have expected that Olushakin would allow the Court to decide the rights and liabilities of the parties since the matter is already sub-judice. Our client has taken further legal actions towards establishing with compelling finality that the fraud allegations made against him are unfounded, groundless, baseless and ill-motivated. It is pertinent to stress that our client is presumed innocent by constitutional fiat until the contrary is proved or established. Our Client wishes to restate his confidence in the judicial process which he believes will vindicate him,” Akinduro’s lawyer submitted.

 

Continue Reading

Judiciary

Court Restrains BEDC From Disconnecting Teaching Hospital Electricity

Published

on

By

 

 

An Ondo State High Court sitting in Akure has restrained Benin Electricity Distribution Company (BEDC) from disconnecting the electricity at the Ondo State-owned University of Medical Sciences Teaching Hospital (UNIMEDTH), Ondo, over alleged indebtedness.
In an order granted ex-parte, the court presided by Justice B J Akinwumi barred the distribution company from tampering with the cable that supplied electricity to the Teaching Hospital
The Teaching Hospital through its counsel, Iyiola Afolabi, had dragged the company to court over the fear of disconnection of its electricity owing to alleged indebtedness.
The institution had prayed for “An Order of interim injunction restraining the Defendant, its agents, servants, privies staff or officers or anybody claiming through or for the Defendant from disconnecting or threatening to disconnect electricity supply to the claimant pending the determination of the Motion on Notice.”
It also prayed for further order as the court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. The Motion was brought under order 20 Rule 1 (1) and (2), Rule 15 of the Ondo State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Honourable Court.
Justice Akinwumi in his order after reading the affidavit of Alo, Damilola Olatubosun granted the prayers of the applicant/ complaint.
The court restrained BEDC, its agents, servants, privies, staff officers, or anybody claiming through or for the Defendant from disconnecting the electricity supply of the Claimant/Applicant pending the determination of the Motion on Notice.
Due to the ongoing Courts vacation, no date has been fixed for the hearing of the motion on notice


45
/ 100


Continue Reading

Trending News