Again: Court Adjourns Ecobank Suit Against Barbican Pending Appeal

Justice Deinde Dipeolu of a Federal High Court, Lagos, once again has adjourned further hearing of the suit filed by Ecobank Plc against Barbican Capital Limited, over N6.3 billion shares, pending the determination of an appeal filed by one of the parties in the suit.

Ecobank had filed the suit marked FHC/L/CS/638/2025, through its lawyer, Mr Kunle Ogunba (SAN), against Obafemi Otudeko, Barbican Capital Limited, and Honeywell Flour Mills of Nig. Plc. as the first, second and third defendants, respectively.

Other defendants are: Siloam Global Services Limited, Oyeleye Foluke, First Bank of Nigeria (FBN) Holdings Plc., Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), and the Nigerian Stock Exchange as the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth defendants, respectively

Parts of reliefs sought by Ecobank includes: “an interlocutory order restraining the defendants, collectively or individually, from taking any steps to sell, transfer or otherwise deal with the N6.3 billion aggregate shares of Barbican Capital Limited in FBN Holdings Plc. pending determination of the suit.

“An interlocutory order to restrain the defendants from converting the shares of Honeywell Flour Mills Plc. pledged to Ecobank, in furtherance of a credit facility, into cash or any negotiable instrument, pending determination of the suit.*

The defendants had, however, filed preliminary objections challenging the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

They filed the objections because a similar suit was pending before Justice Yellin Bogoro.

The defendants also raised objections because there was a pending appeal on the matter before the Court of Appeal.

They said that the pending suit and appeal deprived the court of the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

The defence had sought transfer of the case to the court’s administration judge since a similar suit was before Justice.

However, at the resumed hearing of the matter on Thursday, Mr. Ogunba announced his appearance for the plaintiff/applicant, Ecobank Plc, while Bode Olanipekun (SAN) led a team on behalf of the 1st respondent, Professor Taiwo Osipitan (SAN) appeared for the second defendant, while Elijah Akefe represented the third Defendant, and Dele Adeshina SAN led a team on behalf of the fourth and fifth defendants.

Also, Professor Fabian Ajiogbu (SAN) represented Stanbic IBTC Bank (Party sought to be joined) while Anuoluwapo Babalola represented the sixth respondent, and Oluwatimileyin Awe appeared for the eighth respondent (Nigerian Stock Exchange).

In his address, Ecobank Plc’s lawyer, Ogunba (SAN), informed the court that there has been a major development to the ‘Res’ since the last adjourned date.

He also informed the court of his application dated July 18, 2025, seeking inter alia to join Stanbic IBTC as a party to the suit, as a result of the latter having received the proceeds from the sale of the shares ,which is the ‘res’ in the instant suit.

He further emphasised on the need for the Court to give an Order preserving the said funds, and further he prayed the court to hear the Application.

Counsels to the first, fourth and fifth defendant, as well as counsel to Stanbic IBTC Bank (party sought to be joined) informed the court they have not been served the affidavit of Urgency filed by the plaintiff/applicant.

In his response, Ecobank’s counsel told the Court that the essence of the Affidavit of Urgency was to notify the Court of the need to take urgent action to avoid deterioration of the ‘Res’, and that it was only an innocuous affidavit. However, due to the defendants’ continuous insistence that they had not been served, Ogunba applied to withdraw the said Affidavit, and it was granted by the court.

In his submission, counsel to the party sought to be joined (Stanbic-Ibtc Bank) prayed the court for time to respond to applications served on them. The court stated that they are entitled to time to respond, seeing that they had just been introduced into the matter.

Responding to the Stabic-Ibtc counsel, Ogunba orally prayed the court to preserve the funds as it is the ‘sole essence’ of this suit.

Olanipekun (SAN) referred the Court to Relief “4” of the plaintiff’s application, arguing that his client had not pledged any shares whatsoever to the Plaintiff, he undertook to “do the needful” if we could produce any document evidencing such.

Also, responding to Olanipekun (SAN), Ecobank’s counsel to the court, that the former is speaking from both sides of the mouth. Adding that if the first defendant’s counsel is ready for the hearing of his application, he should inform the Court, and upon the said hearing, we shall furnish him with the said documents he’s asking for.

In his submission, Adesina (SAN) drew the court’s attention to its previous ruling of June 16, 2025, wherein the Court held that no further application shall be taken in the instant suit pending the final determination of the appeal before the Court of Appeal.

He further stressed that the Court should align with the course of justice by not hearing Ecobank’s application, as it was no longer seized with the requisite jurisdiction to do so.

Following several submissions from the counsels, Justice Dipeolu aligned with Adesina (SAN )’s submission and ruled that in view of its ruling of June 16, 2025, it cannot hear any application.

The judge thereafter that the matter adjourned matter pending the final determination of the Appeal.