Disputed Debt: BEDC Prays Court To Strike Out Three Banks’ Suit.

A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has adjourned till April 5, the suit between three banks, two firms, and Benin Electricity Distribution Company Limited (BEDC) and others over an alleged debt.

Justice Yelen Bogoro fixed the date on Wednesday following an argument over the priority of applications filed and argued by Dr. Kemi Pinheiro, SAN.

Pinheiro’s application seeks to strike out the names of 6th defendant Mrs. Olufunke Osibodu and 8th defendant Benin Electricity Distribution Company Limited (BEDC) from the suit.

The lawyer contended that both defendants had nothing to do with the suit instituted by Ecobank through its counsel Kunle Ogunba, SAN, thus, he prayed the court to strike out the suit.

The counter claimants are Stanbic IBTC Bank, Fidelity Bank, Keystone Bank, Alm Consulting Limited and Stanbic IBTC Trustees Limited.

At the resumption of proceedings, BEDC’s counsel Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN described the counter claimants’ motion as a gross abuse and a detriment to legal practice.

He wondered how – according to him – a non-party to the suit which is already before the court can be suddenly dragged to court without any basis.

“My lord, I think as an elder in the legal circle, the application filed on protest by Dr. Kemi Pinheiro SAN challenging his appearance in a strange suit takes priority over every other application which is very fundamental and elementary,” Olanipekun said.

Pinheiro had lamented that BEDC operations in the Niger Delta had been affected by the suit, throwing the area into darkness and leading to panic and unrest in the area.

“They have been in darkness because of a letter written to the BEDC that their asset was under receivership. So, I urge the court to hear our application first which takes priority over any interlocutory application,” Pinhero said.

Similarly, counsel to 4th and 9th respondents Bode Olanipekun SAN also prayed the court to strike out the name of his clients because, according to him, they had no business with the suit.

But counsel to counter-claimant Kunle Ogunba SAN opposed them, arguing that the court ought to hear his application for interlocutory injunction first on the basis that it was ripe for hearing.

Justice Bogoro, in a bench ruling, agreed with Pinheiro and Olanipekun that the proper application to hear first was that of Pinheiro challenging his clients’ appearance in the suit and seeking to strike out their name.

Because of the nature of the application, the judge adjourned the hearing of the motion till 5th of April.

In the suit marked FHC/L/CS/239/2022, the counsel for the 6th and 8th defendants/applicants is praying the court for an order staying hearing or further proceeding on the counterclaim and the motion on notice for interlocutory orders/injunctions both of March 10, 2022, pending the hearing and determination of the instant application.

“An order striking out the names of the 6th and 8th Defendants/Applicants from the counterclaim suit in limine.”

The grounds for the application include that both the counterclaim and the motion on notice of March 10, 2022 are seeking orders/injunctions “with far-reaching implication on the 6th and 8th Defendants/Applicants who ordinarily are not necessary parties to the dispute comprised in the counterclaim.

“By the facts and reliefs pleaded in the counterclaim, the counterclaimants are principally claiming against the 1st Defendant a cumulative sum of $76,746,617.23 and N27,808,882,120.55 being money allegedly obtained through a loan contract between the 1st Defendant and the Counterclaimants.

“The cause of action sought to be enforced by the counterclaim borders strictly on contract emanating from a loan transaction between the Counterclaimants and the 1st Defendant which the Applicants were not privy to.

“In addition, the transaction culminating in this suit was strictly between the Counterclaimants and the 1st Defendant with no direct link to the 6th and 8th Defendants/Applicants.

“No wrongdoing in any manner whatsoever has been alleged against the 6th and 8th Defendants/Applicants in the counterclaim to warrant their joinder to this suit.

“No trace of a reasonable cause of action against the Applicants that makes them necessary parties to the counterclaim.