Ecobank HQ
A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos and presided over by Justice Jude K. Dagat on Monday struck out the application by Ecobank Nigeria Plc seeking to wind-up Honeywell and its sister company, Anchorage Leisures Limited, for abuse of court process.
The business of the court on Monday was to hear pending applications in suits: FHC/L/CS/1571/15 Ecobank v. Honeywell Group Limited and FHC/L/CS/1570/15 Ecobank v Anchorage Leisures Limited which were the petitions for winding–up filed by Ecobank against Honeywell and Anchorage Leisures on the 16th October, 2015.
Addressing the court, Justice Dagat noted that a court faced with winding up application, must first determine if the petition was brought in good faith. According to him, Ecobank knew that Honeywell was challenging the alleged debt and had instituted a matter before Justice Idris, who had ruled that parties maintain status quo ante bellum. Despite the orders, Ecobank started its forum shopping by filing winding up petitions instead of recovery of the alleged debt. The fact of the case is that Honeywell had made payments to the tune of N3.5 Billion as full and final payment pursuant to the agreement of 22nd July 2014 by the parties.
Justice Dagat stated that since the matter pending before Justice Idris is premised on the same facts as this petition, there is an established abuse of the orders of Justice Idris regarding maintenance of status quo ante bellum. Justice Dagat further held that the matter before Justice Idris is first in time, therefore the subsequent petition by Ecobank constitutes an abuse of court process.
The court held that Ecobank’s petition is aimed at overreaching the powers of the Federal High court in the suit before Justice Idris. According to Justice Dagat, ‘’the Supreme Court has made it clear that it would amount to a travesty of justice for any court to hear a matter that is already before another court of coordinate jurisdiction’’.
Justice Dagat further ruled that if the court should proceed with Ecobank’s petition, it would create a conflict of decisions by different courts, which will not augur well within the Judiciary. “It is not in the interest of justice to allow this petition to stand even as the jurisdiction of the court has not been invoked on the matter. Ecobank’s petition was therefore struck out and Honeywell’s challenge was upheld.

this one na staled news, here is the latest from ThePUNCH NG.

Ecobank Nigeria Limited has appealed against a ruling of the Federal High Court in Lagos striking out its winding-up petition against Honeywell Group Limited and its sister company, Anchorage Leisure Limited.

Ecobank, through its lawyer, Mr. Kunle Ogunba (SAN), filed two separate notices of appeal against the court’s ruling before the Court of Appeal in Lagos.


The notices of appeal, each of which comprised the same set of seven grounds, were filed separately against Honeywell and Anchorage.

In addition to the appeals, Ecobank also filed a motion seeking an order of injunction restraining Honeywell and Anchorage or their agents from taking advantage of Justice Dagat’s ruling as it related to their funds kept in the bank in Nigeria pending when the appeal would be determined.

Justice Jude Dagat had on Monday delivered the ruling which is being contested by Ecobank.

The judge had held that the winding-up suit constituted an abuse of court process on the basis that a similar action was pending before another judge of the court, Justice Mohammed Idris.

The judge had ruled that the bank’s suit was filed in bad faith and to deceive.

But the bank in its appeal is praying the court to set aside Justice Dagat’s consolidated ruling striking out the petition.

The appellant also sought an order directing the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to re-assign the petition to another judge for hearing.

It also urged the appeal court to grant its motion on notice dated November 26, 2015 before the lower court seeking to strike out the respondents’ objection, for being an abuse of court process.

The appellant wrote a letter dated June 28, 2016 to Justice Dagat, urging the court to “urgently assign a date for hearing of the duly filed injunction in the interest of justice and in pursuance of the abiding tenet to always hold the scale of justice evenly and balanced between contending parties.”

Ecobank had filed the winding-up petition over Honeywell Group’s inability to pay an alleged N5.5bn debt.

But the companies filed the motion on notice urging the court to strike out the petition, which Justice Dagat ruled on in the companies’ favour.

In one of the grounds of appeal, Ecobank said the judge occasioned a gross miscarriage of justice and erred in law when it struck out the winding-up petition on the ground that the indebtedness is disputed.

“Learned trial judge occasioned a gross miscarriage of justice by striking out the appellant’s petition on grounds of an alleged repayment made outside contract and on terms vehemently opposed by the appellant.

“The respondents’ disputations on the debt, relied upon by the learned trial judge, were made mala fide (in bad faith; with intent to deceive),” the bank said.

Ecobank said the judge also erred by holding that its petition amounted to an abuse of court process because of a suit by the companies pending before Justice Mohammed Idris of the same court.

“The exercise of a right to commence a fresh action rather than counter-claim in a previously commenced action by an adversary is not an abuse of court process,” the bank said.

The appellant said Justice Dagat also erred by holding that it did not observe all preconditions in commencing the suit.

“There is no precondition to be fulfilled before a party can exercise his constitutional right of recourse to court. Rights guaranteed by the Constitution are inalienable, fundamental and ranks higher to all statutory provisions including the provisions of the Companies and Allied Matters Act,” the bank said.

Ecobank further argued that the judge got it wrong by striking out the petition in spite of the fact that the respondents did not join issues with the petitioner by filing an affidavit in opposition.

Besides, the appellant said Justice Dagat erred in law by dismissing the petition on the ground that the debt was disputed.

“The fact that a petition is disputed is a substantive matter which can only be resolved at the hearing of the petition. The respondents were yet to formally react to the petition for winding-up as presented. The ruling of the lower court dealt with substantive matters at interlocutory stage,” the appellant said.

http://punchng.com/ecobank-appeals-ruling-stopping-winding-honeywell/