PHCN workers appeal ejection order over forfeited Ibru’s property

[TGD]

 DISSATISFIED with the decision of Justice Okechukwu Okeke of the Federal High Court in Lagos not to stop their ejection by the Asset Management Company of Nigeria (AMCON), five staff of the Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN) yesterday urged the Appeal Court to halt their ejection from the PHCN property forfeited to the Federal Government by former Managing Director of Oceanic Bank, Cecilia Ibru.

The workers, in a notice of appeal, faulted Justice Okeke for refusing to vacate his earlier order granting leave to AMCON to take over the property.

Ibru forfeited N191 billion worth of assets to the Federal Government through AMCON as part of the plea-bargain arrangement between her and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

As a result, AMCON had on March 6, 2013, forcefully ejected the PHCN workers from the property, which is located at No. 5A George Street, Ikoyi, Lagos.

But the workers, through their counsel, Femi Falana (SAN), had urged Justice Okeke to vacate the order on the ground that it was obtained by AMCON through fraud and suppression of material fact.

Falana had also contended that the said property allegedly acquired by Ibru, was at all material time, the property of PHCN and so, Ibru had no right to forfeit same to the Federal Government.

The appellants are: Afolabi Dada, Charles Amadi, Lawan Muhammad, Comfort Odili-Iwuafor and Anthony Abikoye.

However, Justice Okeke refused to vacate the order, saying it had already been executed and as such, he could not undo a completed act.

Falana in the notice of appeal insisted that Justice Okeke erred in law, because there were exhibits before him to show that the ejection order was obtained by fraud, as there were three pending suits on the subject matter.

He, therefore, urged the appellate court to stay further execution on the order and also restrain AMCON and Deputy Sheriff of the Federal High Court from demolishing the property.

Prior to the filing of the appeal, Falana had also filed a motion before the lower court seeking for leave to appeal against the ruling and stay of execution.

Falana, while arguing the motion for vacation of the ejection order, told Justice Okeke that AMCON acted fraudulently when it obtained a court order, which granted it leave to seal off the plaintiffs' premises.

He further argued that while ownership of the said property was still the subject of a pending litigation before the court involving AMCON, the respondent had gone behind closed doors to obtain an order to levy execution on the property.

He told the court that in 2010, when a forfeiture order was made by Justice Daniel Abutu to relinquish the said property to AMCON, the applicant filed a similar suit, seeking to set aside that forfeiture order.

Falana argued that despite AMCON's knowledge of the pending suit before the court, it still went ahead to obtain an order to seal off the premises.

He told the court that the act of the respondent was fraudulent and should be set aside.

Counsel to AMCON, Felix Azu (SAN), had, while responding to Falana's argument, stressed that when the order for forfeiture was made, the applicants neither appealed the decision nor applied for a stay of execution of the order.

Azu said by their inaction, they had represented that they had no intention to challenge the order.

He said although the applicants had filed a suit to set aside the order made by Justice Abutu, the respondents were privy to that suit and did not appeal against the order of the court granted to them.



The Guardian