Follow Us on Google
By Lukman Olabiyi
Seplat Energy Plc has accused Justice Inyang Ekwo of bias and asked the Chief Judge to transfer all cases involving the company, either as a plaintiff or defendant, to another judge.
Seplat, in a petition dated May 15, 2023, signed by its acting CEO/Chief Operating Officer, Samson Ezugworie, stated that it is unrealistic for the company and its officers, including but not limited to the Senior Independent Non-Executive Directors of the Company, to obtain a fair and unbiased hearing before Justice Ekwo.
The petitioner called on the chief judge to urgently transfer/reassignment of suit NO: FHC/ABJ/CS/626/2023 between Juliet Ebere Nwadi Gbaka & 2 Others v. Seplat Energy Plc & 13 Others and all suits involving Seplat Energy Plc, either as a plaintiff or defendant, pending before Justice I.E Ekwo on the ground of bias or likelihood of bias.
The petitioners stated that on April 13, 2023, in suit no: FHC/L/ABJ/PET/8 2023 between Boniface Okezie & 3 Others V. Seplat Energy Plc & 9 Others filed by some individuals, purporting to be shareholders of the company.
The petitioner said during the course of the court proceedings, the applicants, by a motion ex parte, requested the court for an order of interim injunction, the purpose of which was to prevent the board and management of Seplat from operating and managing the affairs of the company.
It stated that Justice Ekwo did not accede to the request of the applicant, but ordered that Seplat, its officers/directors be served with the relevant court documents for them to attend to court, to show to the court why the ex parte orders sought should not be granted.
The petitioner stated: “My Lord, we are genuinely concerned and worried over the terms of the order that was made by Justice I.E Ekwo on May 9, 2023, whereby His Lordship, after hearing counsel move in terms of the motion before that court, had to adjourn, to enable the petitioners/applicants to put their house in order.
“This is so because, such order, as made by His Lordship, is indicative of the fact that the Hon, Justice I.E. Ekwo would most likely grant (without affording Seplat, its directors and officers) the far-reaching orders sought by the applicants in their motion ex parte, the effect of which is to restrain the directors of Seplat and its officers from performing their statutory and contractual obligations to Seplat and its shareholders, and halt the holding of the annual general meeting of Seplat held on May 10, 2023.
“We hold this view because, having heard the counsel to the petitioners move in terms of the motion paper, and having reached the conclusion that the petitioners’ house was not in order, the Hon. Justice Ekwo would have done was to refuse the ex parte application or direct them to put Seplat and its officers on notice, since the ex parte orders sought in the May petition seeks to achieve the same purpose like the ex parte orders in the April 13 petition, which the Hon Justice Ekwo had already adjourned to May 13, 2023.
The petitioner added that the order of Justice Ekwo made on May 9, 2023 was a clear testimony that if the house of the petitioners/applicants was to be in order, His Lordship would most certainly have granted the far reaching ex parte orders without hearing from Seplat, its directors and officers, thereby, rendering nugatory the judgement of his learned brother judge made on April 12, 2023.
The petitioner added:”Given the above, we hold the view that the judge had manifested obvious bias against Seplat, its directors and officers. Therefore, we do not believe, and justifiably too, that we will obtain a fair hearing before Justice Ekwo, or that the judge will attend to the proceedings of the May petition and all other pending petitions before the judge in which Seplat Energy and its directors and officers are either plaintiffs or defendants with an open mind expected of a an unbiased judge.
