A Federal High Court, Abuja on Monday fixed Jan. 24, 2022 for a suit filed by the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), seeking a stay of execution of orders it granted the businessman, Jimoh Ibrahim, over alleged N69 billion debt.
Justice Okon Abang fixed the date, following AMCON’s appeal filed against the order at the Court of Appeal.
Justice Abang ruled that the adjourned date would either be to mention the suit or abide by the Appeal Court decision on the matter.
Although counsel to AMCON was not in court, Mr Ibrahim was represented by Oladele Oyelami, who held brief for Chief Adeniyi Akintola, SAN.
Oyelami told the court that the matter was slated for hearing the notice of appeal served on the defence on Sept. 30 by AMCON.
But the judge said he could only adjourned to wait for the outcome of the Court of Appeal on the matter.
Abang, who adjourned the matter at the instance of the parties, held that the sitting would be to await the decision of the appellant court.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that AMCON, through its lawyer, Ade Adedeji, SAN, had indicated to appeal the orders made in favour of Ibrahim and his companies by Justice Abang by filing a motion for stay of execution with suit number: FHC/ABJ/001/2021 before the court.
Justice Abang had, on Feb. 22, vacated the orders obtained by AMCON in aid of Taiwo Lakanu, the receiver/manager, it appointed to manage the assets of two seized companies owned by Mr Ibrahim over alleged N69 billion debt.
The seized companies are NICON Investment Ltd and Global Fleet Oil and Gas Ltd.
The judge, in a ruling, held that it was an order made without jurisdiction because there was a subsisting order by a court differently constituted on the matter.
Justice Abang said that AMCON misled the court by withholding material facts from the court to obtain the interim ex-parte order.
NAN observes that Justice Nkeonye Maha of a Federal High Court, Abuja, had, on Jan. 4, granted the AMCON exparte motion.
The court had restrained the defendants, their directors, shareholders, officers, employees, agents or privies from interfering or obstructing Taiwo Lakanu (4th plaintiff) in the course of performing his duty as receiver manager whether by himself and or other persons employed by him over the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs’ assets pending the determination of the originating summons, among others.
