The Federal High Court, Lagos, dismissed a suit filed by FBN Quest Trustees Limited and a court-appointed receiver, describing the action as “vexatious,” “frivolous,” and a “gross abuse of court process.”
 
In his judgment, Justice Akintayo Aluko not only struck out the suit but also ordered the plaintiffs and their counsel to pay millions of naira in damages and legal costs.
 
The court also directed senior lawyer, Norrison Quakers, to personally pay N2 million to the defendants for filing what the court described as a frivolous action that negatively affected the reputation of the Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (RCICAL).
 
The judge also awarded N15 million as reimbursement for legal expenses incurred by the defendants and an additional N5 million against the 1st claimant.
 
The suit, marked FHC/L/CS/1651/2024, was filed by FBN Quest Trustees Limited and Mr Henry Enemodia, a court-appointed receiver/ manager over several companies, including Melrose Books & Publishing Ltd, Bromley Packaging Nigeria Ltd, Bromley Technology Ltd, and Aristocrat Specialties Nigeria Limited.
 
They had sued the Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration and its Director, Dr McHarry Mordi, challenging the appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from agreements executed between the parties.
 
At the heart of the dispute was the appointment of Prof. Ike Ehiribe as sole arbitrator by the arbitration centre pursuant to arbitration clauses contained in offer letters dated August 13, 2020, and November 11, 2020.
 
The claimants argued that the arbitral proceedings ought not to continue because appeals and applications for stay of execution relating to earlier Federal High Court decisions were already pending before the Court of Appeal.
 
However, Justice Aluko rejected the arguments and held that the suit was fundamentally defective.
 
In the detailed ruling delivered on May 8, 2026, the judge ruled that the claimants had improperly initiated a fresh action while related appeals and stay applications were already pending before the appellate court.
 
According to the court, the new suit was filed principally to frustrate compliance with earlier court orders directing the parties to proceed to arbitration.