Posted by By Chika Amanze-Nwachuku on
A Federal High Court in Lagos has restrained JAGAL Nigeria Ltd, its directors, staff, management, employees, officers, agents and privies from operating its accounts in about 10 Nigerian banks, pending the determination of the winding up petition brought against it by Gateway Bank Plc which is now consolidated with Intercontinental Bank Group Plc.
A Federal High Court in Lagos has restrained JAGAL Nigeria Ltd, its directors, staff, management, employees, officers, agents and privies from operating its accounts in about 10 Nigerian banks, pending the determination of the winding up petition brought against it by Gateway Bank Plc which is now consolidated with Intercontinental Bank Group Plc.
The bank, had in a motion filed through its counsel, Mr. Kunle Ogunba, asked the court to among others restrain JAGAL, its directors, staff, management, employees, officers, agents privies, other persons or group of persons under its (JAGAL's) authority or any other authority from operating, withdrawing from or tampering with the company's funds in Access Bank Plc, Citibank, Stanbic Bank, Union Bank, Omega Bank, Eko International Bank, Co-Operative Bank, Zennith Bank, Diamond Bank and Co-Operative Development Bank pending the hearing and determination of the petition.
The plaintiff bank, in an affidavit attached to the motion, said it extended various facilities to JAGAL, which it refused to liquidate despite repeated demands.
According to the bank, the total indebtedness of the respondent company which arose out of various facilities it extended to it (JAGAL) stood at N371, 165,778.25 and has continued to attract interest in line with the existing banking practice.
The plaintiff said the respondent had promised to liquidate its debt to the petitioner on many occasions, but had on all those occasions failed to comply with the said promises even though it had never disputed its indebtedness to the petitioner.
But dissatisfied with the order, JAGAL has approached the court asking it to set aside the order which it made on October 21.
The respondent company also wanted the court to strike out the whole petition for non-compliance with the Companies Winding Up Rules