Bank reports judge to NJC, EFCC over ‘questionable’ judgment

* Deputy Chief Registrar: ‘I’m yet to receive
petition’

Union Bank of Nigeria Plc has accused Justice Ibrahim Buba of
the Federal High Court of perverting the cause of justice in a suit
filed against it by an alleged debtor.

It petitioned the National Judicial Council (NJC), the Economic
and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), and the Department of State
Security (DSS), alleging professional misconduct.

But the court’s Deputy Chief Registrar Mr Bello Okandeji, told
our reporter that was yet to get a copy of the petition to be able
to react. He promised to “find out”.

The bank said the judge “turned the law upside down” in a
judgment in the debtor’s favour.

Union Bank said the judgment “appears most unreasonable and
difficult to understand, thereby conferring benefit to the
unrighteous at the expense of the righteous…”

The petitioner claimed that the judge by the judgment, exposed
it to a great risk, as the loan facilities extended to the company
was part of its depositors’ and shareholders’ funds.

It urged the NJC and anti-graft agency to intervene, saying it
cannot afford to lose such huge amount of money.

The bank said it granted a loan facility amounting to the sum of
$68millionto to a property company, whose alter ego is an Indian
national, for the building of a commercial property in Abuja, which
is said to have been completed.

“The loan remains unserviced with an outstanding balance
currently standing at the sum of $81,941,230.84 as at February 7,
2018,” the bank said in a statement.

Union Bank said the debtor had at the time of obtaining the loan
provided two legal mortgages as collateral. The facility, according
to the bank, had a four-year tenor and was meant to expire on April
30, 2015.

According to the petitioner, the loan was disbursed in dollars
and the interest was initially fixed at 15 per cent per annum, with
payment to be done through proceeds from the Abuja property, from
the rental proceeds of properties in Lagos and Abuja, and from the
company’s other businesses.

The bank said the loan was restructured, but the company
allegedly persisted in its default to repay the loan.

“At one instance, in a letter dated June 28, 2016 the defaulting
company acknowledged its indebtedness to the bank by admitting
owing $61.089million and was proposing repayment pattern of N250
million and N388,890 million in five installments. But the loan
increased to $81.941,230.80 due to lack of servicing,” the bank
said.

Union Bank said the debtor filed a suit against it at the
Federal High Court in Lagos, seeking 12 reliefs, including “a total
reversal of the obligation of the defaulting customer”.

The bank accused Justice Buba of making “contrasting findings by
declaring the loan facility illegal, voiding the legal
instrument/agreement of the loan and granting an order of perpetual
injunction to restrain the bank from exercising its right to
appoint a receiver even when the court also held that the amount
owed to the bank must be paid…”

“By so doing, Honourable Justice Buba somersaulted severally in
the judgment,” the bank said.

According to the bank, the judge also made “an order of
perpetual injunction restraining the defendant (Union Bank) or its
agents from enforcing the loan agreement executed by the
plaintiff,” among others.

The petitioner claimed that the judge was unable to balance the
interest of both parties because the risk assets that would have
been used to recover the loan was “fully destroyed” by the
judgment.

The bank also accused the judge of failing to release the
judgment until March 22 this year, 22 days from the date he
delivered the judgment, which Union Bank said was in violation of
Section 294(1) of the 1999 Constitution.

This, the bank said, affected the perfection of its appeal at
the Court of Appeal.

The petitioner said the judge made another order that parties
should maintain status quo “without giving the defendant enough
opportunity to even appear in court or be represented by
counsel”.

The bank faulted the judge in holding that the contract of
credit facilities in foreign denominated currency between the bank
and the company was illegal.

It said the judge “somersaulted in law when he held that the
outstanding indebtedness of the company be converted to naira at
the prevailing exchange rate of N158 to a dollar being the
prevailing rate at the time the credit facility was availed to the
company in March, 2011.”

The bank added that the judge allegedly misinterpreted the law
by holding that the bank’s granting of credit facilities in US
Dollars and demanding it is prohibited under the Central Bank of
Nigeria (CBN) Act.

The judge was also accused of holding that an upward review of
interest rate did not form part of the agreement between the
parties to the loan.

The bank said it referred to the agreement via a letter dated
June 28, 2016 where the company admitted that payment should be in
dollars, and despite not being controverted, the judge allegedly
did not take it to account.

The Deputy Chief Registrar, when asked if the court would react
to the petition, said: “With respect to the said petition, I am yet
to get a copy. I will find out tomorrow (today) please. You may
also wish to see me in the office tomorrow.”

Culled from TheNation

* Deputy Chief Registrar: ‘I’m yet to receive
petition’

Union Bank of Nigeria Plc has accused Justice Ibrahim Buba of
the Federal High Court of perverting the cause of justice in a suit
filed against it by an alleged debtor.

It petitioned the National Judicial Council (NJC), the Economic
and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), and the Department of State
Security (DSS), alleging professional misconduct.

But the court’s Deputy Chief Registrar Mr Bello Okandeji, told
our reporter that was yet to get a copy of the petition to be able
to react. He promised to “find out”.

The bank said the judge “turned the law upside down” in a
judgment in the debtor’s favour.

Union Bank said the judgment “appears most unreasonable and
difficult to understand, thereby conferring benefit to the
unrighteous at the expense of the righteous…”

The petitioner claimed that the judge by the judgment, exposed
it to a great risk, as the loan facilities extended to the company
was part of its depositors’ and shareholders’ funds.

It urged the NJC and anti-graft agency to intervene, saying it
cannot afford to lose such huge amount of money.

The bank said it granted a loan facility amounting to the sum of
$68millionto to a property company, whose alter ego is an Indian
national, for the building of a commercial property in Abuja, which
is said to have been completed.

“The loan remains unserviced with an outstanding balance
currently standing at the sum of $81,941,230.84 as at February 7,
2018,” the bank said in a statement.

Union Bank said the debtor had at the time of obtaining the loan
provided two legal mortgages as collateral. The facility, according
to the bank, had a four-year tenor and was meant to expire on April
30, 2015.

According to the petitioner, the loan was disbursed in dollars
and the interest was initially fixed at 15 per cent per annum, with
payment to be done through proceeds from the Abuja property, from
the rental proceeds of properties in Lagos and Abuja, and from the
company’s other businesses.

The bank said the loan was restructured, but the company
allegedly persisted in its default to repay the loan.

“At one instance, in a letter dated June 28, 2016 the defaulting
company acknowledged its indebtedness to the bank by admitting
owing $61.089million and was proposing repayment pattern of N250
million and N388,890 million in five installments. But the loan
increased to $81.941,230.80 due to lack of servicing,” the bank
said.

Union Bank said the debtor filed a suit against it at the
Federal High Court in Lagos, seeking 12 reliefs, including “a total
reversal of the obligation of the defaulting customer”.

The bank accused Justice Buba of making “contrasting findings by
declaring the loan facility illegal, voiding the legal
instrument/agreement of the loan and granting an order of perpetual
injunction to restrain the bank from exercising its right to
appoint a receiver even when the court also held that the amount
owed to the bank must be paid…”

“By so doing, Honourable Justice Buba somersaulted severally in
the judgment,” the bank said.

According to the bank, the judge also made “an order of
perpetual injunction restraining the defendant (Union Bank) or its
agents from enforcing the loan agreement executed by the
plaintiff,” among others.

The petitioner claimed that the judge was unable to balance the
interest of both parties because the risk assets that would have
been used to recover the loan was “fully destroyed” by the
judgment.

The bank also accused the judge of failing to release the
judgment until March 22 this year, 22 days from the date he
delivered the judgment, which Union Bank said was in violation of
Section 294(1) of the 1999 Constitution.

This, the bank said, affected the perfection of its appeal at
the Court of Appeal.

The petitioner said the judge made another order that parties
should maintain status quo “without giving the defendant enough
opportunity to even appear in court or be represented by
counsel”.

The bank faulted the judge in holding that the contract of
credit facilities in foreign denominated currency between the bank
and the company was illegal.

It said the judge “somersaulted in law when he held that the
outstanding indebtedness of the company be converted to naira at
the prevailing exchange rate of N158 to a dollar being the
prevailing rate at the time the credit facility was availed to the
company in March, 2011.”

The bank added that the judge allegedly misinterpreted the law
by holding that the bank’s granting of credit facilities in US
Dollars and demanding it is prohibited under the Central Bank of
Nigeria (CBN) Act.

The judge was also accused of holding that an upward review of
interest rate did not form part of the agreement between the
parties to the loan.

The bank said it referred to the agreement via a letter dated
June 28, 2016 where the company admitted that payment should be in
dollars, and despite not being controverted, the judge allegedly
did not take it to account.

The Deputy Chief Registrar, when asked if the court would react
to the petition, said: “With respect to the said petition, I am yet
to get a copy. I will find out tomorrow (today) please. You may
also wish to see me in the office tomorrow.”

Culled from TheNation