A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos will, on October 21, resume proceedings in an alleged debt dispute between Anchorage Leisures Ltd & two others versus Ecobank Nigeria Ltd.
Justice Yellin Bogoro fixed the date to enable the first defendant/counter-claimant (Ecobank) respond to the Affidavit for the Record filed by the plaintiffs (Anchorage Leisures Ltd & two others).
The parties in suit FHC/L/CS/352/2023 are Anchorage Leisures Limited, Siloam Global Limited and Honeywell Flour Mills Plc as plaintiffs/respondents, while Ecobank is defendant/counterclaimant.
The suit arose following a January 27, 2023, Supreme Court judgment allegedly affirming indebtedness of Honeywell and its cronies to Ecobank to the tune of 13 billion naira as at 2023.
But the plaintiffs instituted the instant suit at Federal High Court contending, among others, that the Supreme Court did not pronounce a figure in its judgment.
At a prior hearing, the court following an application by Ecobank’s lawyer, Kumle Ogunba (SAN), granted the bank leave to join Dr. Oba Otudeko, Flour Mills and Honeywell Group as defendants to its counterclaim seeking to recover the alleged debt.
The joined firms are or were either owned by or connected to Otudeko.
When the matter resumed yesterday before Justice Bogoro, ‘Bode Olanipekun (SAN) led a team on behalf of the first-third plaintiffs/defendants to counter-claim, Ogunba led a team on behalf of the first defendant/counter claimant, Ade Adedeji (SAN)led a team on behalf of the fourth defendant to the counter claim, Abimbola Akeredolu (SAN) led a team on behalf of the fifth defendant to the counter claim while Taiwo Osipitan (SAN) led a team on behalf of the sixth defendant to the counter claim.
Olanipekun informed the court the plaintiffs had transmitted the record of appeal and filed their brief of argument challenging the court’s decision. He applied that the matter should be adjourned sine die.
Opposing him, Ogunba drew the court’s attention to proceedings of April 17, saying the court held it would hear pending applications, including plaintiff’s application for stay of proceedings, noting the oral application by Olanipekun was contrary to pronouncement of the court on the last adjourned date.
