Disputed 5.3bn Shares: Court Again Adjourns Barbican/FBN Holdings’ Suit To Jan. 20, As Ecobank’s Recusal Motion Still Pending

 

Justice Ayokunle Faji has again adjourned the further proceedings in a suit filed against First Bank of Nigeria Holdings Plc (FBN Holdings) by an investment firm, Barbican Capital Limited, over the dispute that arose on 5, 386, 397, 202 billion shares, to 20th January 2025.

Justice Faji adjourned further hearing of the suit to the new date, due to the inability of the parties to reach an agreement on either for the court to strike out the suit or dismiss the suit, following the notice of discontinuance filed by the Plaintiff.

At today’s proceedings, the Plaintiff, Barbican Capital Limited, was represented by Mr. Bode Olanipekun (SAN), Babajide Koku (SAN) leading Abubakar Sulu-Gambari (SAN) and four others appeared for FBN Holdings, while Chief Hakeem Afolabi (SAN) appeared for the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) a party joined by the court and Mr. O. A Divine leading Taiwo Ogunba and I. O. Odo, for Ecobank Limited, a party seeking to be joined in the suit.

At the hearing of the matter today, Barbican’s lawyers, led by Mr. Bode Olanipekun (SAN), told the court that the business of the day was for defendant’s lawyer, Koku (SAN) to report directive of his client to the court, regarding the discontinuance filed by the Plaintiff.

Responding, FBN Holdings’ lawyer, Koku (SAN) told the court that he has taken instruction from his client, whom he said is not opposing the withdrawal of the suit by the Plaintiff. He however added that he does not have the instructions of his client to withdraw his counter-claim.

In the same vein, CBN’s lawyer, Afolabi (SAN) also told the court that his client is not opposed to the withdrawal of the suit.

 

With all the parties not opposing the withdrawal of the suit, Olanipekun (SAN) urged the court to strike out the suit.

In opposing the request for the suit to be struck out, Koku (SAN) urged the court to dismiss the suit, noting that parties have joined issues in the matter before the Plaintiff’s notice to discontinue the suit was filed. Afolabi (SAN) also aligned with the request for a dismissal of the suit.

Responding, Olanipekun (SAN) stated that it is not automatic that once issued have been joined, the court must dismiss the suit. After serious submissions, he urged the court not to dismiss the suit but to strike out same.

With the submissions of the parties on whether the suit should be struck out or dismissed, Justice Faji ordered parties to file their written addresses on their position.

Consequently, the Court adjourned further proceedings in the matter to January 20, 2025.

The plaintiff, Barbican Capital Limited had dragged FBN Holdings before the court in a suit marked FHC/L/CS/1172/24, claiming that over the years, it had cumulatively acquired about 5, 386, 397, 202 billion shares, representing 15.1 per cent of FBN Holdings’ overall shares listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange.

The Barbican’s action has been vehemently opposed by the Ecobank Limited, arguing that the funds used by Barbican Capital to purchase the shares were allegedly diverted from the sale of Honeywell Flour Mills shares to Flour Mills of Nigeria Plc.

Ecobank through its lawyer, Adekunle B. Ogunba (SAN), had told the court that the move was made by the Honeywell companies and their chairman, Dr. Oba Otudeko, was to evade payment of debts owed to Ecobank, despite a Supreme Court ruling in favour of the bank.

Ecobank has filed application for joinder in the suit and also an application for the judge to recuse himself from the matter, since he had earlier conducted proceedings in the dispute between Ecobank and Honeywell, wherein he held that the Honeywell companies are not indebted to the bank (though the decision was set aside, as both the Court of appeal and the Supreme Court affirmed that the Honeywell companies are still indebted to Ecobank)

At the last hearing of the matter, Ecobank’s lawyer, Ogunba (SAN), however, expressed surprise about the withdrawal notice, said he was taking back by the plaintiff’s notice of discontinuance, as he was not served with the notice.

Ogunba (SAN) had also told the court that his client’s (Ecobank) still have two pending applications before the court.