The Federal High Court in Lagos has restrained the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) from enforcing a fine of N89, 675,000
against Oando Plc.
The court also restrained the Commission from enforcing its
decision to appoint an interim management team for Oando.
Justice Ayokunle Faji granted Oando’s application for leave to
file a motion for a judicial review of SEC’s decision imposing the
fine on it.
The judge made the order on Friday, a copy of which was obtained
on Monday.
It followed an ex-parte motion filed by Oando through its
counsel Mr. Olasupo Shasore (SAN).
SEC Acting Director-General Ms. Mary Uduk, SEC and Mutiu
Sunmonu, who was appointed as Oando’s interim head, are the first
to third respondents.
Justice Faji granted “an order of certiorari bringing up to the
Federal High Court for the purpose of being quashed, the decision
of the first respondent (SEC) contained in its letter dated 31st
May 2019”.
An order of certiorari is a writ or order by which a higher
court reviews a case tried in a lower court or administrative
agency.
The court also granted an order of certiorari for the quashing
of SEC’s directive to Oando to convene an extra-ordinary general
meeting on or before July 1 to appoint new directors and articulate
remedial measures for alleged corporate governance lapses.
Justice Faji further granted an order certiorari for the
quashing of a press release by SEC on June 1 appointing an interim
management team to be headed by Sunmonu (the third respondent) to
oversee Oando’s affairs.
The judge granted “an order of prohibition and/or an injunction
restraining and preventing the first and second respondents by
themselves, agents, servants or whomsoever, howsoever from
enforcing or seeking to enforce the decision contained in the
letter dated 31 May 2019.”
Justice Faji gave “an order of prohibition and/or an injunction
restraining and preventing the second respondent (SEC) from
enforcing or seeking to enforce the decision of the first
respondent contained in the press release made on Sunday, 2 June,
2019 appointing an interim management team to be headed by the
third respondent to oversee the affairs of the applicant.”
The court made “a declaration that the first and second
respondents acted ultra vires and without jurisdiction in making
the decision contained in the letter of 31 May 2019 which conveyed
the imposition of a fine of N89,675,000 on the applicant…”
Also granted was “an order directing that the leave sought
herein, if granted, shall operate as a suspension and or stay of
the decision of the first respondent contained aforesaid in its
letter of 31 May 2019 as it relates to the applicant and as
contained in the press release made on 2 June 2019 appointing an
interim management team to be headed by the third respondent.”
Justice Faji directed Oando to ensure service on the respondents
of the order and the application for judicial review within
48hours.
He adjourned until July 22 for hearing of the application for
judicial review before the vacation judge.
SEC had on May 31 announced the conclusion of an investigation
of Oando and ordered its Group Chief Executive Officer Mr Wale
Tinubu, his deputy Mr Omamofe Boyo other affected board members to
resign.
It barred Tinubu and Boyo from being directors of public
companies for a period of five years.
SEC subsequently set up an interim management team headed by
Sunmonu to oversee Oando’s affairs and to conduct an Extraordinary
General Meeting on or before July 1.
But, in an ex-parte application filed through their counsel
Shasore, Tinubu and Ojo prayed for an order of certiorari to quash
SEC’s purported imposition of N91,125,000 fine on Tinubu.
The application was granted.
Oando subsequently filed the latest application seeking for
judicial review of the SEC decisions against it with a view to
quashing them, along with the injunctive reliefs, which Justice
Faji granted.
Subscribe ToNairalaw News!
President Muhammadu Buhari
Presidential Tribunal: Buhari Kicks Against Admission of
Bio-Data to INEC
President Muhammadu Buhari, Monday objected to the admission of
his form CF001 which contained his personal data submitted to the
Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, for February 23,
presidential election.
Buhari’s objection against the said document was announced by
his lead counsel, chief Wale Olanipekun, SAN, to the presidential
election petition tribunal sitting in Abuja.
Olanipekun while objecting to the admission of the form,
however, said that his reason would be made public at the address
stage.
Presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP,
Atiku Abubakar and the party had tendered Buhari’s form as part of
efforts to establish their petition against Buhari on his
qualification for the last presidential election.
Apart from the form, Atiku also tendered the final result of the
election signed by professor Yakubu Mahmood which the tribunal
admitted as exhibit.
Also tendered and admitted as exhibit are documents containing
total number of voters in the INEC register and the number of
collected permanent voters card for the elections.
Atiku’s lead counsel, Dr. Livy Uzoukwu also tendered six
Newspapers publications and 10 press statements issued by INEC in
respect of the election.
At the time of filing this report, other documents numbering 6,
806 mainly election result sheets from Kano and Zamfara states were
tendered and admitted by the tribunal.
Also, Atiku and the PDP kick-started calling of witnesses to
testify for them in their allegations of election malpractices,
corruption, irregularities and violence against the conduct of
election that produced Buhari as President.
The first Witness, Buba Galadima who adopted his statement made
on oath said under cross examination by Buhari’s counsel, Chief
Wale Olanipekun that he supported Buhari in the 2003, 2007, 2011
and 2015 presidential elections but parted ways with him due to
Buhari’s alleged unfulfilled promises.
Galadima said that he supported Atiku in the 2019 election
because he was a better candidate who is educated, God-fearing and
capable of providing good governance in the country.
The Witness, however, denied parting ways with Buhari because he
was denied privileges but insisted that Buhari failed to protect
life and property of citizens and did not allow the rule of law to
prevail.
Also under cross examination by the APC counsel, Lateef Fagbemi,
Galadima further told the tribunal that he was not a member of the
PDP and that his party – Reformed All Progressives Congress, RAPC,
had a memorandum of understanding with Atiku and PDP on how to make
life bearable for Nigerians, ensure security of life and property
and allow the rule of law to prevail.
Second Petitioner’s Witness, Ijeoma Peter Obi who claimed as
Information Communications and Technology, ICT, expert admitted
transmitting results from polling units to the INEC server in his
capacity as Registration Area Technician who was trained and
shortlisted by INEC for the 2019 election.
Another witness, Adejuwitan Ebenezar Olalekan also admitted
transmitting election results to INEC server.
Olalekan told the tribunal that INEC server was automatic and
embedded in the smart card reader for the purposes of transmitting
results.
He added that he personally transmitted results to INEC server
through a code provided by the electoral umpire, saying that the
server was connected to the smart card reader.
Under cross examination by Olanipekun, the Witness said that he
did not know President Muhammadu Buhari as second respondent in
Atiku’s petition.
Also under cross examination by Fagbemi, the witness admitted
not serving as presiding officer for INEC but only was shortlisted
by the electoral body.
By PRNigeria