Posted by By Innocent Anaba on
Justice Rebecca Olomujobi of a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos will on July 22, 2005 rule on whether to vacate an order it earlier made on March 2004, restraining some Directors of a Nigerian oil and exploration company, Pan Ocean Oil Corporation Nigeria, from interfering in the management of the company.
Justice Rebecca Olomujobi of a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos will on July 22, 2005 rule on whether to vacate an order it earlier made on March 2004, restraining some Directors of a Nigerian oil and exploration company, Pan Ocean Oil Corporation Nigeria, from interfering in the management of the company.
The court made the order, following an application by Pan Ocean, challenging the purported removal of some of its Directors on March 17, 2004, at a meeting called by the estranged wife of late shareholder and director of the company, Patrizio Di Geveara Fabbri, Annamella Timolini.
Pan Ocean is in the suit contending that Annabella Timolini is not a shareholder of the company and as such, does not have the power to convene a meeting of shareholders or directors of the plaintiff company for the purpose of passing a resolution for the removal of officers of the company and is consequently asking the court to declare the said meeting, null and void.
Other defendants in the suit are Inter Ocean Oil Development Co. (Nig); Inter Ocean Oil Exploration (Nig); Major Gen Theophilus Danjuma; Mr John C. Brunner; J. B. Eruhero; H. C. Rooks and the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC).
Counsel to the defendants, Olawobi Sasore, had at the resumed hearing in the matter during the week, urged the court to vacate the order made in the matter, contending that an interim order is by its nature meant to last for a given period of time.
Plaintiff's counsel, Chief Afe Babalola (SAN), however, opposed the application, contending that the court is still considering the preliminary objection raised in the matter by the defendants challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the matter. According to him, "the position of the law is that as long as there is an injunction in place, the court cannot make any other order, whether to add or to remove. It is a settled principle of law that once the jurisdiction of the court is still being challenged, the court cannot decide either way, until the application (challenging jurisdiction) is disposed of."
Babalola further contended that the said application for the vacation of the order is an abuse of court process, as a similar application for the discharge of the order has earlier been made by the defendants' counsel and the court ruled that an extensive argument is needed to resolve the matter. According to him, it was not proper for the defendants' counsel to now come to ask the court to vacate the said order.
Meanwhile, the court will today continue hearing on the application brought by the defendants in which they had sought to introduce fresh evidence. The court noted that since the application was not opposed by the plaintiff's counsel, that the court would hear the application.