Firm Urges Court to Wind-up Conoil Plc. Over Alleged N17m Debt

A telecom service provider, Hoop Telecoms Limited, has instituted a winding up petition against Conoil Plc, over alleged inability to pay a debt of N17,162,173.38 million.

The firm in a petition marked FHC/L/CP/400/25, filed by its Lawyer, Obinna A. Divine, is pursuant to Rules 2 (1)(1), 2 and 4 Companies Winding-Up Rules 2001, Order 26 Rules 2 (1) and 7(1) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009, and under the court’s inherent powers.

In the winding up petition, the petitioner is asking the court for the followings: “an order winding up Conoil Plc, due to its inability to pay its debt”. The petitioner also prayed for “an order empowering the Petitioner to decommission and retrieve all its telecom equipment currently trapped in the various premises of the Respondent, as clearly identified in the Petitioner’s correspondence dated 17th April, 2024 {attached as Annexure 2} to this petition.

“AN order empowering the Petitioner and/or the Liquidator appointed in the course of the proceedings to take over all of the assets of the Respondent {be it movable or immovable, wherever found} and to sell/liquidate same either by private treaty or by public auction.

“AN order granting leave to the Petitioner and/or the liquidator appointed in the course of proceedings to takeover, appropriate or otherwise utilize the investments, shares or other interests of the Respondent in any company, corporate entity/institution in Nigeria or outside Nigeria.

“AN order permitting/allowing the Petitioner to apply/distribute the proceeds from the sale of the Respondent’s properties, chattels,

its chooses in action and/or interest {as per reliefs 2 and 3 above} to Creditors {including the petitioner herein} as legally enjoined.

“An order authorizing the bailiffs/sheriffs of this Honourable court and men of the Nigerian Police Force or any other law enforcement agency to assist the Petitioner and/or the Liquidator so appointed to taking over and liquidating the assets of the Respondent in the stated above.

“And for such orders or other Order{s} as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.”

The petitioner supported the petition with an affidavit deposed to by one Olatunjii Sunday Shina, a Collection Officer and a Principal officer in the employment of the Petitioner.

Parts of deponent’s aveerments read: “The petitioner and the respondent entered into an arrangement wherein the petitioner provided the respondent with internet service and the Respondent pays via either the supply of diesel or the payment of cash for the services rendered.

“That the relationship between the parties went bad sometime in 2022 when the Respondent refused to either supply the diesel or pay the required sum for the internet services rendered by the petitioner.

“That as at 6th day of September, 2022 the Respondent failed to make various payments for invoices duly issued and served by the Petitioner, totaling the sum of N10,178,107.13 million.

“Aggrieved by the actions of the Respondent in not making the required payments, the Petitioner authored correspondence dated 6th September, 2022 {served on the Respondent on same date} demanding payment. And that despite receipt of the above correspondence since 6th September, 2022, the Respondent failed and/or refused to pay the outstanding sum.

“That the Petitioner further authored a correspondence dated 10” February, 2025 {duly served on the Respondent} via which it duly informed the Respondent that its indebtedness as at January, 2024 is the sum of N17,162,173.38 million, and consequently demanded the immediate liquidation of the said sum.

“The Respondent has scornfully rebuffed all entreaties and/or efforts of Your Petitioner to retrieve its funds. And that the continuous refusal and/or failure to liquidate the outstanding indebtedness have occasioned untold hardship on the Petitioner/Applicant. And that the Respondent is indebted to the Petitioner/Applicant as could be gleaned from the various documents placed before this Honourable Court.

“That the preservative Orders of Court being sought via this application is in line with the provisions of the Nigerian Laws especially as it relates to Winding-Up proceedings.

“The Order of this Honourable Court is paramount to prevent or restrain the Respondent’s Directors from dissipating the funds and other traceable assets of the Respondent.”

The petitioner also filed an application, seeking to appoint a provisional liquidator, who shall take over and preserve all the assets Conoil Plc, pending the determination of the petition.

However, Conoil Plc through its lawyer, Dr. Susan Agu, filed a preliminary objection to the petition, deposed to its Head of Information Technology and Principal Staff, Bamidele Gbadamosi, who denied virtual all the petitioner’s claims.

The deponent, stated that “there is no disagreement between the Petitioner and the Respondent of the nature described in Paragraph 9(a) of the Petition, Contrary to the impression sought to be created in paragraph 9(a) of the Petition. I states the followings to be the true State of affairs between the Petitioner and the respondent:

“HOOP Telecom (formerly Direct on PC also Direct on Data as ownership changed) entered into a contract to provide connectivity for some locations of the respondent, namely; Marina, Apapa, Ikeja, Abuja and Port-harcourt for both intranet and Internet through cybercom in 2023.

“After Direct on PC was taken over by Direct on Data management, it was resolved by the management of both companies that settlement of reconciled bilis will be in exchange for diesel for AGO.

“Given that the payment for the internet services was to be with Diesel AGO, it was agreed that no payment by diesel should be due which is not preceded by a service report generated by the Petitioner and reconciled and authenticated by the Respondent’s audit and finance department from which the value of the diesel due may be computed based on the prevailing market value at the time.

“The invoice contemplated by the parties was one predicated on a report of internet supplies which same is authenticated by the Respondent and evaluated in terms of the diesel equivalent at prevalent rate.

“Contrary to all aveerments in the petition as to failure and refusal to pay invoices, the Petitioner and the Respondent were never ad idem on any invoice pending subject to Audit and Finance confirmation by our record (sample of Audit verified invoice before process for payment is as attached also).

The deponent further states as follows: “Sometime in 2022, following unsatisfactory internet services delivery from the Petitioner, parties disagreed greatly on the quantum and quality of services and were thus unable to reach an agreeable position regarding the quantity of diesel (if any) that is due to the Petitioner.

“On account of the above disagreement, the Petitioner disconnected its internet services to the Respondent and never resumed afterwards.

“The Respondent does not owe the Petitioner any amount of money whatsoever whether as stated in paragraph 9(c) or (k) or any amount whatsoever. And that as at December 2022, the outstanding cost of internet services provided was settled with the supply of 10, 000 litters of Diesel which delivery was taken by the Petitioner.

“There is no debt upon which a petition of this nature for wind ng up can be brought. Any outstanding cost for internet services (which it dented) as intended to be in exchange for diesel and not money as envisaged by the CAMA.

“There is no debt due within the proper meaning and intendment of Section 5 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020. And that the Petitioner is merely on a gold digging mission and only instituted this petition to ring improper and inordinate pressure on the Respondent.

“The petition for winding up is not intended as an machinery to circumvent legal procedure.

“I know that the domain registration details of the Respondent is stil with the Petitioner and in the course of my application for renewal of same recently, I noticed that the Ibadan out Door Unit Equipment was taken away by the Petitioner without the consent of the Respondent.

“I know that the Petitioner still provides Radio’s ODU (Out Door Unit) maintenance for the Respondent from time to time and the issue of denial of access is false and conjectured.”

Meanwhile, at the hearing of the matter on Monday, petitioner’s lawyer, O. A. Divine told the court that, the respondent is not taking the settlement seriously as directed by the court on May 12, 2025.

He also informed the court of a follow up meeting, on 16 May, whereby his client conveyed a reversed proposal, only to be informed by the respondent that they needed to convey the outcome of the meeting to their mgt and get back. Adding that till now, “we’ve not received any correspondence or position from the respondent”.

He therefore urged the court to hear the winding up petition against the Conoil Plc.

Responding, Conoil Plc counsel, Dr. Agu, while confirming that parties have been talking, told the the court that she cannot confirm that “parties are not serious”.

She also told the court that her client’s position at that meeting, the petitioner concede to accept N13m as against N17m. And that client maintained that from its record, the money it is owing the Petitioner is N9.8m, which it’s ready to issue cheque.

She therefore pray the court for further date for report of settlement. The request which was vehemently opposed by the counsel to the Petitioner who insisted that the court proceeds with hearing of the matter. The Petitioner’s counsel insisted that all the amount he needed to windup the respondent is 200,000.

Upon taking arguments on the respondent’s preliminary objection, Justice Alexander Owoeye, reserved his ruling to a date to be communicated to the parties.