A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has fixed February 4 for the hearing of a suit seeking to stop the federal government and five others from recovering the N39.1 billion meant for the metering contract.

A metering company, Ziklagsis Network Ltd, through its lawyer, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), brought the suit seeking the sum of N1.1 billion in damages and the cost of filing against the Federal Government of Nigeria, the Federal Ministry of Power, the Minister of Power, the Debt Management Office, Providus Bank Ltd, and De-Haryor Global Services Ltd for their alleged interference with the project, which it was granted a loan to execute and repay in seven years.

In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/576/2024, the plaintiff contends that based on Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, and 18(i), (ii), (iii), 24, and 29(ii) of the Judgment Compromise Agreement it entered with the Federal Ministry of Power on August 28, 2017, the ministry and the federal government had no powers to tamper with, confiscate, seize, withhold, divert, convert, or appropriate the sum of N39,171,985,233.95 granted to it for the supply or provision of electric meters in Nigeria.

The company, which pointed to the Covid-19 pandemic as the cause of its non-execution of the contract, further submits that there are calculated attempts by the federal government and the Ministry of Power to frustrate and sabotage its efforts in performing the terms of the Revalidated Tripartite Agreement, as modified by Addendum No. 2, “which attempts are done in utter bad faith with the ultimate goal of truncating or divesting the plaintiff of the benefit of the project.”

The plaintiff further submits that the defendants frustrated efforts to execute the project by refusing to release the funds despite it being awarded the contract and receiving presidential approval for compliance on its part.

In their joint response to the suit, the federal government and the Minister of Power argue that they acted in accordance with the agreement.

In a counter affidavit, Providus Bank, through its lawyer, Adesegun Ajibola (SAN), described parts of Ziklagsis’ affidavit in support of the originating summons, stating that the company is only a fixed deposit account customer and that Providus is not aware of the terms of the agreement it reached with the federal government.

Similarly, in a counter affidavit, an electricity installation company, De-Haryor Global Services Ltd, informed the court that the suit was “brought in bad faith, and the court should not lend support to the plaintiff (Ziklagsis)’s action but should rather condemn it.”

In a reply through its counsel, Marcus Abu, Esq., of the Justice Advocates, De-Haryor submitted that the contract was awarded to Ziklagsis to cushion the effects of the hardship faced by Nigerians due to estimated energy billing through the deployment of free prepaid meters, but the company denied Nigerians the benefit of the project.

De-Haryor added that Ziklagsis has not placed anything on the ground in the court to demonstrate what it has done pursuant to its Exhibit ZNL 5 agreement, while De-Haryor, on the other hand, has substantially executed the contract it has with it.

“By the provision of Article 5(d) of the JCA, the plaintiff (Ziklagsis) was given two years of moratorium within which to supply or provide electric meters in Nigeria according to the JCA,” De-Haryor’s lawyer submitted.

“Meanwhile, the plaintiff (Ziklagsis) did not invest any funds in the performance of the contract, but the 1st and 3rd defendants (the federal government and Minister of Power) had already given the sum of over N39 billion to the plaintiff for the execution of the metering project. Rather than perform its obligations under the contract, the plaintiff deposited the said sum in a fixed deposit.

“My lord, the mere fact that the 1st and 3rd defendants (the federal government and Minister of Power) had already paid the contract sum to the plaintiff (Ziklagsis) shows that the defendants have performed their obligations under the said contract.

On the other hand, the plaintiff depositing the contract sum in a fixed deposit account is a clear indication that it had no intention to utilize the contract sum for the project intended by the JCA. Rather than declaring estoppel against the defendants as prayed in relief 1, the court should declare that the contract is already discharged by the plaintiff’s breach.”

While questioning why the plaintiff’s metering service agreement was executed with the Yola Disco and why the plaintiff received the letter of drawdown from the 2nd defendant (Ministry of Power) without supplying a single meter towards the project, he asked, “Is the world still being ravaged by the Covid-19 pandemic at the time of filing this suit? It is common knowledge that Covid-19 did not last the whole of the year 2020.”

De-Haryor joined the suit as an interested party after delivering phase one of the barracks metering project for the Nigerian Army under the Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs) metering project. The army had introduced it to Ziklagsis to receive a loan of N7.5 billion out of the N39 billion granted to the company.
Meanwhile, Justice James Omotosho has fixed February 4 for the hearing of the suit.