Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke of the Federal Excessive Courtroom, Lagos has adjourned till January 30, 2025, to find out whether or not it has jurisdiction to proceed listening to the swimsuit filed by Warranty Belief Financial institution (GTBank) in opposition to Afex Change Commodities Restricted, over an alleged N17,808,452,467.17 debt.
The Decide adjourned the matter after listening to arguments from Chief Ajibola Aribisala (SAN), counsel for the plaintiff (GTBank), and Professor Wale Olawoyin (SAN), counsel for Afex Commodities Change Restricted.
In his handle to the court docket, Aribisala challenged the looks of Prof. Olawoyin, citing Order 17(5) of the Guidelines of Skilled Conduct for Authorized Practitioners, which prohibits a lawyer from showing as counsel in a case the place the lawyer is a celebration.
Aribisala knowledgeable the court docket that Prof. Olawoyin filed an attraction in opposition to a ruling of the court docket, which doesn’t have an effect on his shopper and argued that it’s contemptuous.
He urged the court docket to proceed with contempt proceedings filed on November 19, 2024, asserting that his proper to look as a authorized practitioner within the case had been suspended.
In response, Prof. Olawoyin famous that the matter was scheduled for point out and that the problem of contempt was not but due for listening to.
He additional knowledgeable the court docket that the defendant had filed a Discover of Attraction, transmitted data of attraction, and filed a quick of arguments.
Olawoyin additionally highlighted a pending movement earlier than the court docket for a keep of proceedings, stressing that the court docket doesn’t have jurisdiction to proceed to entertain the matter.
“The difficulty of contempt is just not earlier than the court docket at this stage. When the contempt proceedings are due for listening to, we’ll handle the matter of authorized illustration.
“There may be an attraction and a movement for a keep of proceedings, and subsequently, the court docket can’t cope with another points presently however should await the end result of the attraction,” he argued.
In response, Justice Aneke emphasised that the court docket should first rule on whether or not it has jurisdiction to proceed listening to the case earlier than another software will be entertained and adjourned the matter to January 30, 2025, for a ruling.
The court docket had beforehand barred Afex from disputing the claims within the swimsuit, primarily based on its interpretation of the World Standing Instruction (GSI) in a facility letter dated June 16, 2022.
Dissatisfied with this ruling, Afex filed a Discover of Attraction and requested a keep of proceedings pending the end result of the attraction.
The applying seeks to forestall the Central Financial institution of Nigeria (CBN) and the Financial and Monetary Crimes Fee (EFCC) from implementing the ex-parte order.
It additionally seeks a keep of proceedings in a swimsuit marked FHC/L/CS/911/2024 till the attraction is resolved.
In help of the movement, Mayowa Ajide, a litigation clerk for Afex’s counsel, deposed that the trial court docket had ordered all industrial banks in Nigeria to switch N17,808,452,467.17 from Afex’s accounts to GTBank’s account.
He said that the ex-parte order was primarily based on a flawed interpretation of the GSI and filed a movement on Could 31, 2024, to have the order vacated.
He added that the scenario grew to become extra contentious when GTBank initiated contempt proceedings in opposition to Afex on Could 31, 2024, adopted by comparable proceedings in opposition to a number of banks on June 11, 2024, for allegedly failing to adjust to the court docket’s orders.
Ajide swore: “On June 10, 2024, the trial court docket centered on the contempt proceedings as an alternative of contemplating Afex’s software to put aside the ex-parte orders.
“The case was adjourned a number of instances, with Afex elevating authorized objections, together with difficult the competence of the choose to listen to contempt proceedings associated to her orders.
“The attraction raises vital authorized points, and Afex has requested an injunction pending the attraction, together with a keep of proceedings.”
The appellant argued that failure to grant the keep would undermine the attraction and deny Afex a good listening to.
