N32bn Judgment: Innoson Seeks Court Order Restraining GTB from Name Change
IVM Innoson, Group of Companies , through one of its subsidiaries, Innoson Nig. Ltd. has asked court to stop Guaranty Trust Bank (GTB) from transmuting to a Private and a Financial Holding Company until it pays the over N32 billion Supreme Court judgement debt.
A statement by Cornel Osigwe, Spokesman, Innoson Motors alleged that GTB was attempting to change its name in order to evade the payment of the N32bn court judgment.
Mike Igbokwe SAN Collections Now Available for purchase ~• For enquiries and Details, Call Winifred Tayo-Oyetibo on 08177770462 or +234(01) 4620907, 4620807 Ext. 122 ~•• CLICK VIDEO Below.
The Trajectory of excellence in Legal practice
The Dynamism of law and practi e in Nigeria
Nigerian Maritme Cabotage policy and law
Osigwe emphasised that as Innoson was awaiting GTB to come up with a payment plan for its over N32 billion Judgement debt, the bank resorted to a scheme of de-registering itself as a public limited liability company and re-registering as a private limited liability company and a financial holding.
Osigwe stated that the Supreme Court of Nigeria had struck out GTB’s motion filed to set aside its earlier decision/order made on February 27, 2019, dismissing the bank’s Court of Appeal judgement of February 6, 2014, which was in favor of Innoson Nigeria Ltd.
He recalled that the Federal High Court, Awka Division on March 27, 2019, pursuant to Supreme Court dismissing GTB’s appeal, granted leave to Innoson to enforce and execute the judgment and Garnishee Order Absolute made by the court coram Shakarho, J at the Ibadan Judicial Division on May 18, 2010 and July 29, 2011 respectively.
This order was concurrently affirmed by the Court of Appeal in the judgment of February 6, 2014 and by the Supreme Court in its judgment of February 27, 2019.
Osigwe stated that as Innoson commenced the act of court execution, the bank returned to the court vide its motion on notice seeking orders staying or suspending the execution embarked by Innoson and also sought orders setting aside the exparte Orders made by the court granting the automobile company leave to enforce the judgment.
He added: “Whilst refusing GTB’s application and staying further proceedings the court further held that the order it made on March 27, 2019 in favor of Innoson Nigeria Ltd granting it leave to enforce the judgment and issue processes of execution of the judgment are valid; also that all the steps taken to levy executions in pursuance of that order are still valid and are not vacated; whilst all the prayers by GTB in its motion of 1st April 2019 are not granted.
“GTB however rushed back to the Supreme Court and applied for an order setting aside the Supreme Court’s judgement, dismissing its appeal against the above judgement. However, the Supreme Court struck out the motion on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2020.”
He said the auto company had sued the bank at the Federal High Court and therein sought court restraining the fourth Defendant (Corporate Affairs Commission) from deregistering the first Defendant (GTB) as a public limited liability company and or re-registering the first Defendant (GTB) as a private limited liability until it-GTB until it paid the outstanding judgment arising from Suit Nos: FHC/L/CS/603/2006 and No. FHC/AWK/CS/139/2012, respectively.
It also asked the court to stop Corporate Affairs Commission from registering or re-registering the GTB as a holding or financial holding company whether as a public or private limited liability company until it pays Innoson Nigeria Ltd the outstanding total judgment debt of N32.8 billion, arising from suit numbers: FHC/L/CS/603/2006 and FHC/AWk/CS/139/2012, respectively affirm by the appellate courts in Appeal nos: CA/1/258/2011, SC.694/2014 and CA/E/288/2013.
Besides, Innoson sought an order cancelling the GTB’s special resolution and or any other of its resolution that it should be deregistered as a public limited liability company and or be re-registered as a private limited liability company and or a holding company until it pays it the sum, arising from suit numbers: FHC/L/CS/603/2006 and FHC/AWk/CS/139/2012, respectively affirmed by the appellate courts in Appeal Nos. CA/1/258/2011, SC.694/2014 and CA/E/288/2013.
The statement added: “An order setting aside the 3rd Defendant’s (Security and Exchange Commission) No -objection to 1st Defendant’s proposal to be re-registered as a private limited liability company and as a holding or a holding financial company.
“An order setting aside the 2nd Defendant’s approval -in- principal granted to the 1st Defendant to operate as a holding or a holding financial company.”