Follow Us on Google
By Lukman Olabiyi
Seplat Energy Plc has instituted a N5 billion suit against its former Chairman/Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Ambrose B. C. Orjiako, and his company, Amaze Limited, before the Federal High Court, Abuja.
The firm, in the suit filed through its counsel, Mathew Burkaa (SAN), apart from the claimed damages, is also asking the court for various orders against Orjiako and Amaze Limited.
Seplat Energy stated, in the suit, that on September 26, 2022, it entered into a consultancy agreement with the defendants with commencement date being July 1, 2022, for the purpose of acquiring the entire share capital of Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited (“MPNU”) by the plaintiff.
It stated that the second defendant was at all times represented by the first defendant, who is the directing mind and the alter ego of the Amaze Limited.
Seplat Energy said the defendants were only its consultants, whose roles and duties were clearly stated in their agreement. It accused Orjiakor of purportedly presenting a letter to the President of Nigeria and Minister of Petroleum Resources, wherein he described himself as ‘Pioneer Chairman’, a position not existing in the company and, also, unknown to the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020, and the Articles of the plaintiff.
Seplat Energy is asking the court for a declaration that the defendants acted in contravention of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) and its operation and regulation when Orjiako allegedly issued the letter dated December 22, 2022, on its behalf, to the President of Nigeria and Minister of State for Petroleum Resources, without the approval of its board of directors.
It is asking the court for a declaration that the alleged action of Orjiako constitutes false representation, as it was allegedly intended to bind it in a transaction worth over $300,000,000.
The plaintiff prayed the court for an order restraining Orjiako and Amaze Limited from carrying out, in the name of the plaintiff, any action and/or making any representation or committing the plaintiff without the express approval of the board of directors of the plaintiff first formally sought and obtained.
It also asked for an order setting aside all actions allegedly taken by the first and second defendants without the express approval of the board of directors of the plaintiff.
The prayer of the plaintiff also includes a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from making any representation on behalf of the plaintiff or committing the plaintiff to any transaction or deal without the express and formal approval of the plaintiff, via its board of directors.
The suit was supported with a six-paragraph affidavit dated March 21, 2023, deposed to by one James Ayetima, a litigation secretary in the law firm of Matthew Burkaa & Co.
