KEY POINTS
- Kepco and partners say there’s no court approval for Nigerian banks’ claimed receivership over Ikeja Electric, citing multiple restraining orders.
- Lawyer for the banks, Kunle Ogunba, SAN, is accused of misrepresenting court rulings while simultaneously appealing them.
- Banks seek to overturn the restraining portion of the ruling, arguing it hampers a legally recognised receivership appointment.
In response to a contentious receivership claim involving Ikeja Electric, KEPCO Energy Resource Nigeria Ltd., NG Power-HPS Ltd., and New Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. have retaliated against Nigerian banks, alleging that a senior attorney concealed court orders while silently contesting them.
In spite of a notice sent by Kunle Ogunba, SAN, on behalf of FBNQuest Trustees and other lenders, asserting that the courts had approved his appointment as receiver/manager, the three power companies, which together own the majority of Ikeja Electric, stated they are not in receivership.
In a new public rebuttal, they maintain that there is no such court approval and that Ogunba has actually been prevented from acting in that capacity by a number of rulings.
Court Orders, Counterclaims and a Quiet Appeal Fuel the Dispute
According to the companies, Ogunba is prohibited from taking “adverse steps” against them by restraining orders that were issued on June 24, June 27, and August 5 of this year. They point out that although the attorney acknowledged acting on behalf of disclosed principals in his own August 8 publication, he continued to make public claims regarding his authority.
What has infuriated them the most is what they refer to as a contradiction: on August 7, Ogunba filed a notice of appeal contesting the very order that limited him, after first suggesting the court had approved his appointment. The companies questioned, “Why is he appealing against an order that was allegedly granted in his favor?”
Additionally, they assert that in a different case filed following the June restraining orders, Ogunba is requesting a court ruling regarding his “alleged” appointment. Whether a properly appointed receiver or manager is still able to carry out their duties under the Companies and Allied Matters Act in spite of these limitations is the main legal question in that case.
The banks contend that there was a miscarriage of justice because the lower court incorrectly restrained Ogunba from acting and acknowledged his appointment as statutory. They want the appellate court to uphold his appointment while rejecting the ruling’s restraining clause.
As of right now, there is no indication that the dispute will move from the courtroom to the boardroom. Stakeholders are being advised by the power companies to ignore the advertisements and have faith in
