A Federal High Court, Ikoyi, Lagos, presided over by Justice Akintayo Aluko, will on December 22, 2023, deliver a ruling in a suit instituted by the United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc, against Stallion Group of Companies, over alleged debt to the tune of N156,026,032,804.84 billion.
The judge arrived at the date after taking arguments on different applications as initiated by the parties in the suit.
Justice Aluko had on October 20, 2023, directed the UBA to take over the assets of Stallion Nigeria Limited and its subsidiaries in Lagos, Port Harcourt and Kano, owing to the alleged indebtedness.
Some of the firm’s assets affected by the court’s directive are mortgaged property known as “all that piece or parcel of land together with any building thereon” at Plot 371, Trans Amadi Industrial Layout, Port Harcourt, Rivers State.
“Plot 353, Trans Amadi Industrial Layout, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Plot 370, Trans Amadi Industrial Layout, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, KM17, Lagos Badagry Expressway, Lagos State and No. 54, Challawa Industrial Estate, Kano State, Nigeria.”
Also affected is the company’s money totalling N156,026, 032,804.84 billion in commercial, microfinance, and other financial institutions across the country.
Justice Aluko had made the order while granting an Exparte application filed by the lawyer for the bank, Temilolu Adamolekun.
The defendants/respondents in the suit are Stallion Nigeria Limited (In Receivership), Von Automobile Nigeria Limited, Popular Farms And Mills Limited, Havana Nigeria Limited, KRBL Food Industries Limited, Qingqi Motorcycle Manufacturing Limited, Stallion Auto Keke Limited, Stallion Motors Limited, The Honda Place Limited, Yokohama Construction Limited and Mr Sunil Vaswani.
During the resumption of the hearing on the suit, counsels for the defendants, Wahab Shitu (SAN) and Joseph Mbadugha (SAN), in their separate applications, urged the court to vacate the Exparte order and to also strike out the entire suit for lack of jurisdiction.
The SANs, while citing a plethora of legal authorities, contended that the receiver/manager cannot institute the suit in his name, adding that if the receiver/manager must institute the suit in his name, he must seek the leave of the court before instituting the suit.
The senior lawyers further argued that the applicants failed to register the Deed of Mortgage with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) within 90 days and that there was no evidence attached to the summon when the Deed of Mortgage was delivered to the CAC.
Consequently, Shitu and Mbadugha prayed Justice Aluko to hold that the applicant/plaintiff’s suit is incompetent and to set aside the exparte order granted on October 20, 2023.
Responding, Adamolekun posited that the defendants’ objection was extraneous and urged the court to dismiss the same for the reason that the authorities cited by the respondents were different to the suit slammed against them.
The lawyer stated that the receiver/manager on the authority cited was appointed over the company.
Adamolekun reasoned: “It’s Section 197 of CAMA, registration within 90 days. But the CAMA also allows time to be extended. He cited a suit, FHC/L/CS/1357/2023, in which the court extended the time for the registration of a mortgage.
Adamolekun equally stated that the respondents’/defendants’ motion to set aside the Exparte order, was different because they did not look at the exhibit that made the court grant the order.
