Justice Chukwuejekwu Aneke of the Federal High Court, sitting in Lagos, has refused to quash the case instituted by aggrieved stakeholders of Seplat against the company, its Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Mr. Roger Brown, and the Chairman, Board of Directors, Mr. Basil Omiyi, over lack of jurisdiction submission by the Respondents.
The court, however, vacated an interim ex-parte order previously made by the court, restraining Mr Roger Brown from parading himself as the Chief Executive Officer of Seplat Energy Plc.
Justice Aneke asserted the jurisdiction of the court over the matter and the locus standi of the Petitioners/Applicants while ruling on applications filed by the Respondents, namely Seplat Energy PLC, Mr. Roger Thompson Brown, Mr. Basil Omiyi, and Persons affected by the ex-parte order in Suit No. FHC/L/402/2023.
The court, while vacating the interim order of the court made on 8th March 2023 relying on Order 26 Rule 9 and 10 of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2019, however noted that the Petitioners/Applicants had in their application alleged that the affairs of Seplat was being conducted in a manner that was illegal, racist, oppressive, and unfairly prejudicial to their interests.
“I find as a fact that the Petitioners’ grouse can adequately be accommodated under the provisions of Section 354 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, CAMA to which provision falls within the jurisdiction of this court.
“There is no doubt that the application of this provision can be made by a member of a company, who alleges that the affairs of the company is being run in an oppressive manner.
“Parties are in agreement that the petitioners are members of the 1st Respondent (Seplat), which is within the meaning of the provision of Section 354 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, CAMA and this has not been controverted by the Respondents.
“It is equally a fact that the averments in support are issues that can be comfortably capsulated under section 354 of CAMA. This is because when the entirety of the grouse of the Petitioners are read along with averments in support, they point to the fact on whether the affairs of the First Respondent are being run in an oppressive manner, and against the interest of the Petitioners.
“I find and hold that the Petitioners have lucus standi to bring the petition before the Court. Furthermore, this court has a regular jurisdiction to adjudicate on the suit as it falls within the provision of section 25(1) of the Constitution.
“However, by virtue of Order 26 Rule 9 and 10 of the of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2019, the interim order of the court made on 8th March 2023 are hereby discharged and vacated”, Justice Aneke ruled.
He equally adjourned the matter till May 16 for accelerated hearing.
It is recalled that the court had on March 8, restrained Brown from parading himself as the CEO of the company pending the determination of a suit instituted against him and others by some aggrieved stakeholders of the company over allegations of racism, favouring of expatriate workers, discrimination against Nigerians, and breach of good governance.
The court had also made an order restraining the Seplat’s Chairman, Omiyi, and the Independent Non-Executive Directors under him from “continuing to run the affairs of Seplat in an illegal, unfair, prejudicial, and oppressive manner pending the hearing and determination of the Petitioner’s Motion on Notice for interlocutory injunction”.
Justice Aneke made the order while ruling on a Motion Ex-parte, filed by J C Njikonye, on behalf of some aggrieved stakeholders of Seplat – Moses Igbrude, Sarat Kudaisi, Kenneth Nnabike, Ajani Abidoye, and Robert Ibekwe, Petitioners, against the Respondents, Seplat Energy PLC, Mr. Roger Thompson Brown, and Mr. Basil Omiyi, in Suit No. FHC/L/402/2023.
However the Respondents in their various applications urged the court to set aside the ex-parte orders, contending that the Petitioners lacked jurisdiction to file the suit.
They also challenged the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit on grounds that the complaints of the Applicants fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court, NIC.
Besides, they contended that the interim orders were granted against persons that were not parties to the suit, and that the Petitioners lacked locus standi to file the suit.
It is also recalled that the ruling on the applications seeking a vacation of the interim orders and also challenging the locus standi of the aggrieved shareholders and jurisdiction of the court earlier scheduled for March 8, 2023 was adjourned to Thursday April 6 when Justice Aneke finally gave his ruling.
