Alleged N50b Debt: AMCON Appeal Against Bi-Courtney Suffers Setback

Alleged N50b Debt: AMCON Appeal Against Bi-Courtney Suffers Setback

The Lagos Division of Court of Appeal on Thursday refused to grant an application filed by the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) seeking to compile additional record to support its appeal against the ruling of a Federal High Court in Lagos barring it's from taking over the assets of Bi-Courtney Group.

It will be recalled Justice Ibrahim Buba had in a ruling he delivered in September this year vacated an earlier order made by another judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Okon Abang empowering AMCON to take over the assets of Bi-Courtney Group over an alleged N50 billion debt.

Dissatisfied with the ruling, AMCON had filed a notice of appeal through its counsel, Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA).

Agbakoba had argued that the orders of lower court setting aside Justice Okon Abang’s orders were made without jurisdiction, as it was trite in law that a court cannot grant prayers not sought by any of the parties before it.

When the appeal came up for hear on Thursday, the upper court presided over by Justice Rita Pemu declined a motion filed by AMCON seeing for an order to compile and file additional record if appeal.

The appellate court subsequently adjourned the matter till February 12, 2015 for hearing of the appeal.

It will be recalled that Justice Abang had on September 22, 2014 appointed, Agbakoba, a , as the receiver/manager over Bi-Courtney assets, including the Murtala Mohammed International Airport, Terminal 2.

However, these orders were set aside by Justice Buba, who held that the orders were an abuse of court process because it was obtained by Agbakoba through concealment of fact.

Other companies affected by the order are: Chartered Investment Limited, Resort International Limited and Roygate Properties Limited.

But AMCON in it notice of appeal stated that Justice Buba misdirected himself when he heard and granted the oral application of lawyers to the Bi-Courtney Group to vacate the receivership, possession and freezing orders made by Justice Abang without such application being fixed for hearing.

AMCON argued that Part XIV of AMCON Practice Directions, 2013 was clear that all applications other than a simple application must be filed and served on each party before hearing.

The appellant stated that the trial judge erred in law when he held that the orders of Justice Abang amounted to abuse of court process, as the cause of action in the suit before Justice Buba was different from that which Justice Abang based his orders.

It further maintained that there was a full disclosure of all relevant materials and facts at the time Justice Abang was moved to grant the orders, and as such Justice Buba was legally wrong to arrive at the conclusion that AMCON misled Justice Abang.

AMCON averred that Justice Buba was equally wrong when he held that the discharge of Justice Abang’s orders had concluded the suit, as Sections 49 and 50 of AMCON Act allows the appellant a period of 14 days from the date an order is granted to file a debt recovery action.

The appellant is asking the upper court to set aside the orders made by Justice Buba.