Justice Deinde Dipeolu of a Federal High Court, today, fixed May 15, 2025, for the hearing of the suit filed by Ecobank Nigeria Limited against Otudeko Obafemi Adedamola, a son to Oba Otudeko, and eight others, over 6, 314, 116,229 billion shares in Barbican Capital Limited.
The court had earlier fixed today for the hearing of the suit.
However the judge fixed the new date, due to non-service on some of the defendants in the suit numbered FHC/L/CS/638/2025.
Other defendants in the suit are: Barbican Capital Limited; Honeywell Flourmills of Nigeria Plc; Siloam Global Services Limited; Oyeleye Foluke, FBN Holding Plc; Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) and Nigerian Stock Exchange, listed as first to third and fifth to ninth defendants.
In the suit, Eco Bank Plc through its lawyer, Ogunba (SAN) prayed the court for the following reliefs; “an interlocutory order restraining Otudeko Obafemi Adedamola and eight others, either collectively or individually from taking any steps to amortize, dematerialize, compromise, sell, transfer or other deal with the 6, 314, 116,229 billion collective aggregate shares of a company, Barbican Capital Limited in the FBN Holdings Plc, pending the hearing and final determination of the suit filed by Eco Bank Nigeria Limited.
“An interlocutory order restraining all the defendants from taking any steps to amortize, dematerialize, compromise, sell, transfer or otherwise turn to cash or any negotiable instrument of any sort the already dematerialized shares of Honeywell Flourmills of Nigeria Plc, pledged to the Eco Bank Plc, in furtherance of the credit facility availed to the Honeywell Flourmills of Nigeria Plc, to purchase the said shares pending the hearing and final determination of the suit.”
In urging the court to grant the reliefs sought, Ogunba (SAN) had told the court that the motion which is pursuant order 26(5)(1); 6(1) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) 2019; section 36 of the 1999 constitution Federal Republic of Nigeria and under the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
He added that the motion is supported with an affidavit of 38 paragraphs deposed to by Jafaru Kupa, a financial Officer in the employment of the Eco Bank Plc. And attached with a written address and some documentary exhibits.
At the resumed hearing of the matter today, Ogunba (SAN) led the Ecobank’s legal team, while Bode Olanipekun (SAN); Ade Adedeji (SAN); Taiwo Osipitan (SAN) appeared for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants respectively; while Ademola Adesina, appeared under protest for the 4th and 5th defendants; and Abiola Ogundare and Luqman Salman both appeared for the 6th and 7th Defendants.
Presenting his case, counsel to 4th, 5th and 6th defendants, Ademola Adesina, informed the court on his reason for appearing under protest on behalf of the 4th and 5th defendants, was that service of the Originating processes were not served personally on the two defendants. Adding that they only only found out about today’s proceedings from an online.
However, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Ogunba (SAN) informed the court that at the last adjourned date, the court made an order for the Defendants to show cause why the Order should not be granted against them. He further noted that he received several processes by the Defendants this morning and nonetheless, he confirmed his readiness to proceed with the application.
On the issue of service of the Originating processes on the 4th and 5th Defendants, Ogunba (SAN) affirmed that the said Defendants were indeed served, as the record of the court could attest to this fact.
Confirming Ogunba’s submission, Justice Dipeolu after perusing the court’s file, confirmed service of the Originating process vide the proof of service in the court’s file.
Responding, counsel to 4th and 5th defendants, stated that the proof of service showed that it was one Mayowa that received the court’s processes on behalf of the 4th and 5th Defendants, which is contrary to personal service as prescribed by the Rules of Court.
By way of rejoinder, plaintiff’s counsel, Ogunba (SAN) stated that the essence of service is to notify a party of a pending suit, adding that the 4th and 5th defendants having been represented by counsel, is presumed that they are aware of the instant suit. Nevertheless, he offered to serve the Counsel to the 4th and 5th defendants the Originating processes in court.
Curiously, the counsel to the 4th and 5th Defendants refused service of the said processes, noting that he cannot undertake personal service on behalf of the said defendants.
For the interest of Justice, the presiding judge, after taking further arguments on the issue of personal service on the 4th and 5th defendants, directed that the said defendants be served with the Originating processes.
Justice Dipeolu thereafter adjourned the suit to May 15, 2025, for further proceedings.
