Ecobank vs Anchorage Dispute: Court Rules On Application March 13

The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos on Wednesday, January 31, 2024, fixed March 13, 2024, to rule on a pending application in an alleged debt dispute between Anchorage Leisures Ltd & two others versus Ecobank Nigeria Ltd.

The parties in the suit marked FHC/L/CS/352/2023 are Anchorage Leisures Limited, Siloam Global Limited and Honeywell Flour Mills Plc as Plaintiffs/Respondents, while Ecobank is the Defendant/Counterclaimant.

Justice Yellim Bogoro fixed the date after hearing Anchorage’s motion for amendment of their Writ of Summons argued by Mr. Bode Olanipekun (SAN) and Ecobank’s Counter-Affidavit and Further Counter-Affidavit opposing the application argued by Mr. Kunle Ogunba (SAN).

The suit arose following a January 27, 2023, Supreme Court judgment affirming the indebtedness of Honeywell and its cronies to Ecobank in the colossal sum of 13 Billion as at 2023.

The Plaintiffs, on the other hand, rather than obey the Supreme Court proceeded to institute the instant suit at the Federal High Court contending that the Supreme Court did not pronounce a figure in its Judgment.

At a prior hearing, the court following an application by Ecobank’s lawyer Ogunba, granted the bank leave to join Dr. Oba Otudeko, Flour Mills and Honeywell Group Limited as additional defendants to its counterclaim seeking to recover the alleged debt.

The joined firms are or were either owned by or connected to Otudeko.

At the commencement of proceedings on Wednesday, Olanipekun represented the Plaintiffs, while Ogunba appeared for the Defendant/Counterclaimant.

Oluwashobo Adeola, holding the brief of Elijah Akefe, appeared for the 4th Defendant to the Counterclaim, Abimbola Akeredolu (SAN) represented the 5th Defendant to the Counterclaim, Taiwo Osipitan (SAN) appeared for the 6th Defendant to the Counterclaim.

Olanipekun reminded the court that at the last adjourned date, it set down the Plaintiffs’ motion dated 23rd October 2023 for amendment of their Writ of Summons (and other originating processes) for hearing.

Ogunba informed the court that the Defendant/Counterclaimant had a preliminary objection to the Plaintiffs’ application for amendment, while Osipitan argued that the Defendant/Counterclaimant’s application went a step further to seek summary judgment against all the Defendants in the suit.

After a contention about whether the court could hear the preliminary objection alongside the Plaintiffs’ application for amendment; the court held that it would hear the motion for amendment, before the Notice of Preliminary Objection.

The judge also heard and granted the bank’s application for leave to file a Further Counter-Affidavit to the Plaintiffs’ application for amendment.

While Olanipekun moved the Plaintiffs’ application for amendment, Ogunba adopted the Counter-Affidavit and Further Counter-Affidavit in opposition.

Justice Bogoro adjourned till March 13 for ruling.