Seplat Energy Plc has urged the Court of Appeal Abuja Division to set aside the judgement of Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court, which granted an ex-parte interim order against the company and some of its officers.
Justice Ekwo had on May 11, 2023 granted an ex-parte order restraining the Board Chairman, the named Independent Non-Executive Directors, the Chief Operating Officer and the Company Secretary from operating or functioning as officers of Seplat Energy in any capacity or otherwise conducting the affairs of the company.
The judge had granted the order in suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/626/2023 instituted by Juliet Gbaka and 2 others against Seplat Energy Plc and 13.
But Seplat in its Notice of Appeal filed at the registry of the Federal High Court is praying the Appellate Court to allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the lower court.
The Appellant stated that the Lower Court erred in law and occasioned grave injustice against them when it made an Order on the 11 May, 2023 that affects them adversely despite the fact that the Court lacks jurisdiction and that the suit was an abuse of court process and there was a pending motion to that effect before the orders were granted.
Seplat stated that an earlier petition with suit No-FHC/ABJ/PET/8/2023 is pending before the same Judge and his Lordship had already refused to grant the same ex parte orders in that suit which have now been subsequently granted in suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/626/2023. The facts of suit number FHC/ABJ/PET/8/2023 had been brought to the attention of the court.
The Appellant stated that in a Motion on Notice dated 10th May 2023, it challenged the jurisdiction of the court, and that the lower court had a duty to first determine the motion challenging the jurisdiction of the court in one way or the other.
Seplat counsel, Bode Olanipekun (SAN) had argued that the interim orders were obtained by three shareholders who cumulatively have about 161 shares (about 0.00027%) out of over 500 million issued shares of the company.
Olanipekun also submitted that before the interim orders were obtained, there was a pending motion on notice by which Seplat challenged the court’s jurisdiction.
He further stated that before the interim orders were granted, Seplat filed an appeal. It’s Directors have also filed appeals and motions for stay of execution at the Federal High Court.
The senior lawyer maintained that there are special procedures for the removal of directors of a company under CAMA and that is not the basis for the removal of Seplat’s directors in this instance.
