Sun. Jul 14th, 2019

Court fixes Oct. 16 for mention in suit seeking winding up of BBNaija sponsors

A Federal High Court in Lagos on Tuesday, fixed Oct. 16 for further mention in a suit seeking the winding up of the sponsors of the Big Brother Naija (BBNaija) Show, Payporte Global System Ltd.

The petition was filed by Vacant Board Ltd.

Justice Ayokunle Faji fixed the date for further mention of the suit, which was earlier fixed for mention on Tuesday.

Mr Ogedi Ogu appeared for the respondent, while Mr Yemi Fajuyitan is counsel for the petitioner.

The case will now continue on the next date.

The petitioner had filed a debt recovery suit against Payporte, before a Lagos High Court in 2015.

Also Read: OPEC re-elects Barkindo as Sec-Gen, seeks global oil cut

Judgment delivered on May 27, 2016, awarded the sum of N23.1 million against the former BBNaija sponsors, in favour of the petitioner.

The petitioner, however, contends that on Feb. 27, 2017, the respondent made a part payment of N5 million, leaving a balance of N17.1 million which it has failed to liquidate till date, in spite of several demand letters.

It, therefore, filed a winding up petition before the Federal High Court on Dec. 29, 2017, asking it to wind up the company.

Meanwhile, in its notice of preliminary objection on April 25, the respondent is challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain or even hear the petition

Respondent counsel, Mr Ogedi Ogu contends that the said petition for winding up failed to comply with the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the Companies Winding-Up Rules, 2001.

He argues that no summons was filed by the petitioner, issued or sealed in respect of the said petition.

Ogu also added that the failure rendered the petition null and void.

He said that a failure of the petitioner to file and serve the summons before the commencement of the winding up suit, robes the honourable court of jurisdiction to hear the suit, as same cannot be competently activated in the petition as presently constituted.

Payporte contends that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner’s suit.

It urges that the winding up suit be dismissed, with substantial cost awarded against the petitioner.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Follow by Email
Facebook
Facebook
Twitter
YOUTUBE
INSTAGRAM