A’Court asked to vacate order freezing Union Homes’ assets

By Lukman Olabiyi

Union Trustees Limited has filed a Notice of Appeal against the ruling of Justice Daniel Osiagor of the Federal High Court in Lagos, vacating an ex parte order freezing the assets of Union Homes Savings and Loans Plc.

Union Trustees Limited is asking the Appeal Court to set aside the ruling of the Federal High Court delivered on March 23, 2022, which discharged the interim Mareva Order and Order for the appointment of Receiver/Manager made on February 24, 2022.

In addition, Union Trustees Limited, on the same March 23, 2022, filed an application which seeks to suspend the ruling and order made by the judge before the lower court.

It is also seeking an order of injunction pending appeal, maintaining status quo and restraining the Respondents, whether by themselves or their counsel, agents or privies, from taking any steps, whatsoever, to interfere with the orders of February 24, 2022, or the ongoing Receivership of Union Homes Savings and Loans PLC, pending the determination of the Applicant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The applicant is further praying the court for an order restraining the Respondents, whether by themselves or their counsel, agents or privies from publishing, either by social media, by print or electronic publications, however, described or by making any form of representation to the public in respect of the first and second respondents, as relates to the vacation of the orders of the court and/or the ongoing Receivership of the first respondent, pending the determination of the applicant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The applicant based its application on the ground that the lower court erred in law when it heard and determined the motion on notice, dated March 7, 2022, filed by Dr Muiz Banire (SAN), when his competence to represent Union Homes Savings and Loans Plc had been challenged.

It also argued that the hearing and determination of the application filed by Banire was wrong as the court ought to have first resolved the issue of legal representation before proceeding to other substantial issues, such as the motion to vary/discharge the interim orders.