Thursday, 28th March 2024
To guardian.ng
Search
Breaking News:

Court orders seizure of Lagos firm over alleged N4.6 billion bank loan

By Joseph Onyekwere
23 July 2019   |   3:15 am
Justice Chuka Obiozor of the Federal High Court, Lagos State, has restrained the management of Shoreline Power Company from interfering with a receiver-manager...

Justice Chuka Obiozor of the Federal High Court, Lagos State, has restrained the management of Shoreline Power Company from interfering with a receiver-manager, Taiwo Ogbara, appointed by Ecobank Nigeria over its assets.

Other defendants in the action are Orikolade Karim, Tunde Karim, Yinka Karim, Marc Hasenclever and Graeme Stout.

The court restrained them from obstructing Ogbara in the course of his duties as receiver-manager pending the determination of the motion on notice.

Obiozor also granted an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants or their agents from tampering with or disposing of the firm’s assets covered by a Deed of All Assets Debenture of March 18, 2013 between Ecobank and Shoreline registered at the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC).

He directed the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) and his men to assist the receiver-manager in carrying out his duties over the firm’s property and equipment.

Granting an order of interim Mareva injunction restraining all Nigerians banks from honouring any mandate presented by the defendants for the withdrawal of any sum kept in Shoreline’s account pending hearing of the motion on notice, the court directed the banks to file within 48 hours the company’s statement of account with them and to transfer such funds to an account as may be requested by the receiver-manager.

In a supporting affidavit to the ex-parte application, an Ecobank employee, Donatus Onoja, said Shoreline was indebted to the bank to the tune of N4.6 billion.

The bank said it wrote the firm to demand the payment of the outstanding indebtedness, but got no response.

It added that despite receipt of the demand letter, the firm “neither responded nor did it comply or display any genuine willingness to fulfil its repayment obligations to the first applicant within the time prescribed.”

The bank said the firm utilised the loan and refused to repay it, contrary to their agreement.

The case comes up today, July 23.

0 Comments