•Ex-directors lose bid to stop proceedings The two appeals filed at the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal by four former directors of Newswatch Publication Limited (NCL), Ray Ekpu, Dan Agbese, Yakubu Mohammed and Soji Akinrinade, was yesterday declared invalid and incompetent by a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos.
The court also dismissed the application brought by the directors to stop the proceedings indefinitely on the grounds that the premise upon which they based their application was faulty.
The court also accused the directors of engaging in "indecent haste" by rushing to file the appeals without obtaining the permission of the court as stipulated by the law.
This happened in the case instituted against the former directors by the new management of the Newswatch Company headed by Dr. Jimoh Ibrahim, which is being heard by Justice Okon Abang.
Newswatch, Dr. Jimoh Ibrahim and Global Media Mirror Limited brought the suit, praying the court to declare that the said four former directors have ceased to be directors and could not legally do anything on behalf of the company.
The plaintiffs are also asking the court to declare that the former directors have no competence to declare a trade dispute under the Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) between them and the NCL. The plaintiffs are, therefore, praying the court to restrain Ray Ekpu and the others from taking measures that may be inimical to the interests of the company.
After some interlocutory decisions of the court were decided against them, the four directors rushed to the Court of Appeal where they filed two notices of appeal within 48 hours.
One of the appeals was filed on May 14 and was challenging the decision of the court delivered on April 29, 2013.The other appeal was dated May 15, 2013.
At the proceedings yesterday which lasted till 4.30 pm, the defendants, represented by Mr. Adekunle Oyesanya (SAN), urged the court to stop further hearing of the matter.
Oyesanya prayed the court to hand off the proceedings on the grounds that two interlocutory appeals had been filed at the appellate court and that it would be legally improper for a lower court to continue entertaining the matter.
He said: "We have filed two interlocutory appeals in this matter. The Record of Appeals had been compiled and the same had been transmitted to the Court of Appeal and the appeals had been entered. My humble application now is that since the appeal had been entered, Your Lordship should adjourn this matter sine die (Indefinitely)"
This argument was opposed by the plaintiffs' lawyer, Chief Bolaji Ayorinde (SAN), who insisted that the appeals were incompetent.
The judge at this stage also raised an issue suo motu (by itself) by inviting the two counsel to address it on whether or not the two appeals were competent against the background of the fact that the defendant did not seek the leave of court before filing the appeal as required by sections 241 and 242 of the 1999 Constitution.
Oyesanya insisted that the court had no right to raise such question suo motu at this particular stage when Records of Appeal had been compiled and transmitted to and entered by the Court of Appeal.
But Ayorinde said: "The first appeal was filed outside the time limit of 14 days allowed by the law. Specifically, the decision appealed against was made on April 29 while the Notice of Appeal was filed May 14, 2009.
"The second appeal was incompetent in the light of combined meanings of sections 241 and 242 of the 1999 Constitution and section 14 of the Court of Appeal Act, which stipulate that when a ground of appeal involves question of fact or mixed facts and law the leave of the court must first be sought before an appeal is filed. The grounds of appeal are before the court; at best they may be described as comprising mixed facts and law. No such leave was obtained by the defendants here.
"I urge your Lordship to dismiss their application, since no valid appeals are pending, and proceed to hear the substantive originating summons."
In his ruling, Justice Abang said: "A trial court should not tremble; a trial court should not be shaken; a trial court should not be frightened if a party says an appeal has be filed against its decision and that it should hand off the matter before it. Rather a trial court should have the courage of the Biblical Elijah by looking into the validity of the appeal itself.
"If the appeals are valid, I will certainly adjourn the proceedings pending the outcome; if not valid I will make distinction to the cases cited by the learned counsel to the defendants.
"The time limit within which to file an interlocutory appeal under the law is 14 days, the 14 days have expired on May 13, the first appeal was filed on May 14. The first appeal is therefore incompetent and I so hold.
"The second appeal filed was within the time limit. But where the ground of appeal questions the discretionary powers of court, it is a ground of mixed law and fact for which the leave of the court is necessary before the appeal could be filed. The defendants engaged in indecent haste by rushing to file the appeal without obtaining the leave of Court. The application of the defendant is hereby dismissed and I so hold."
The defendants also argued another application for stay of proceedings before Justice Abang which they earlier brought. But this application also suffered similar fate as it was dismissed on the grounds of incompetence.
National Mirror