Ibrahim re-files appeal against AMCON over alleged N69.4b debt
In compliance with the decision of the Court of Appeal, Lagos, Chairman, Global Fleet Group, Jimoh Ibrahim, has re-filed his appeal against Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) for seizing his assets and freezing his bank accounts over alleged N69.4 billion debt.
Contrary to earlier reports that the appeal was dismissed, the suit was actually struck out and the appellant told to re-file the action by the appellate court.
Justice Obande Ogbuinya in his lead judgment last Friday, said: “Appeal struck out for being incompetent” and two other justices – Abubakar Umar and A.I Banjoko – agreed with the judgment and the consequential orders.
The appellants were given 14 days to obtain leave to appeal, for which they have filed fresh appeal in compliance with the decision.
In an 11-ground appeal filed on their behalf by Chief Niyi Akinola (SAN), dated December 13, 2021 but filed December 14, 2021, the appellants challenged decision of the lower court.
The appellants are asking the Court of Appeal to set aside the decision of Justice Rilwan Aikawa for erring in law when it made an order directing AMCON to take over the appellants’ assets and freeze their bank accounts.
In ground one of the appeal, they argued that “the learned trial judge erred in law when he placed reliance on Section 49 of AMCON Act 2018 to come to the wrongful conclusion that AMCON will be helpless if the ex-parte orders of November 4, 2020 were not made.”
The case of the plaintiffs are that Section 49 of the said Act is not applicable in the instant case as there was no debt yet ascertained as found by Justice J. Oguntoyinbo in her ruling of October 2, 2019 in suit FHC/L/CS/776/2016.
They further argued that the learned trial court was wrong to place reliance on Section 49 of AMCON Act when the ruling of Oguntoyinbo indicated that there were no debts.
The appellants on ground two submitted that the learned trial court erred in law when it refused the prayers of the appellants to set aside the ex -arte orders of November 4, 2020 by holding that the ex-parte application dated March 20, 2020 upon which the said orders are predicated is permissible in law and is preservative.
On grounds three, appellants submitted that the learned trial judge erred in law in refusing the prayers of the appellants in their motion on notice dated November 19, 2020 seeking among others, the setting aside of the ex-parte order of November 4, 2020 having been made without jurisdiction.
The appellants claimed in grounds four that learned trial court erred in law when it held that it was wrongful for the trial court to have heard the ex-parte motion of March 20, 2020, which led to the order ex-parte freezing the accounts of the appellants and taking possession of their property on November 4, 2020 after the same court had ordered stay of proceedings.
No date has been fixed for the hearing of the fresh appeal.