Union Bank/Petro-Union-$15b Judgment Order: Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing To Oct 7

The Supreme Court has fixed October 7, 2021, for the hearing of
a motion seeking leave to appeal the £2.556 billion judgment order
by the Federal High Court in 2014, in favour of Petro Union Oil and
Gas Limited against the Central Bank of Nigeria and Union Bank. The
Minister of Finance and the Attorney-General of the Federation were
also parties to the suit.

The judgment was against CBN and Union Bank and attracts
interest at the rate of 15% per annum between 1994 and 2014 and
thereafter at the rate of 10% per annum until it is paid. As of
today, the total judgment sum is about $15.5 billion.

At the resumed sitting on Monday, the lingering controversy over
who was the rightful Counsel of Petro Union in the case came up
again with two lawyers, Joe Kyari Gadzama, SAN and Onyechi
Egwuonwu, announcing separate appearances for Petro Union.

Egwuonwu informed the court that he was briefed to institute the
case leading to the judgment at the Federal High Court and that
when the matter got to the Court of Appeal, he invited Gadzama to
lead the legal team for Petro Union as the “instructing
counsel”.

He also told the court that following his application to
disqualify Gadzama from further appearing in the matter and to be
disbarred, Gadzama hurriedly informed the court of his intention to
withdraw his appearance in the case and followed this up by filing
an affidavit to the same effect. He argued that having done so,
Gadzama is estopped from changing his mind and continuing to act as
counsel to Petro Union.

More so, he posited that having been instructed on a contingency
fee basis which means that his fee is tied to a portion of the
judgment sum and having been instructed through an irrevocable
power of attorney, he could not be debriefed.

Mr. Gadzama drew the Court’s attention to the letter to the
Chief Registrar and affidavit of confirmation of legal
representation filed by Petro Union confirming that he was their
Lead Counsel. The court also directly inquired from the three
Directors of Petro Union present in Court who their lawyers are and
they each reiterated and confirmed in that their lead lawyer
remains Gadzama and that they had asked Egwuonwu to work together
with him to no avail.

Following this confirmation, the court informed Egwuonwu that he
could no longer be heard in the proceedings.

This paved the way for Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN leading
other senior lawyers for the Appellants, to introduce his pending
application.

Lawyers for the other Respondents – CBN, Minister of Finance and
the Attorney-General of the Federation, Damian Dodo, SAN and
Ghazali, SAN informed the court that they were not opposing the
application of the Applicant – Union Bank but Mr. Gadzama on behalf
of the 1st Respondent (Petro Union) told the court that he had
filed a preliminary objection to the application on the ground that
the same application for leave to appeal against the same Court of
Appeal decision was earlier heard on the merits and dismissed by
the Supreme Court on 16th December, 2019.

Owing to the nature of the new application, the court adjourned
the hearing in the case to 7th October, 2021.

The Supreme Court has fixed October 7, 2021, for the hearing of
a motion seeking leave to appeal the £2.556 billion judgment order
by the Federal High Court in 2014, in favour of Petro Union Oil and
Gas Limited against the Central Bank of Nigeria and Union Bank. The
Minister of Finance and the Attorney-General of the Federation were
also parties to the suit.

The judgment was against CBN and Union Bank and attracts
interest at the rate of 15% per annum between 1994 and 2014 and
thereafter at the rate of 10% per annum until it is paid. As of
today, the total judgment sum is about $15.5 billion.

At the resumed sitting on Monday, the lingering controversy over
who was the rightful Counsel of Petro Union in the case came up
again with two lawyers, Joe Kyari Gadzama, SAN and Onyechi
Egwuonwu, announcing separate appearances for Petro Union.

Egwuonwu informed the court that he was briefed to institute the
case leading to the judgment at the Federal High Court and that
when the matter got to the Court of Appeal, he invited Gadzama to
lead the legal team for Petro Union as the “instructing
counsel”.

He also told the court that following his application to
disqualify Gadzama from further appearing in the matter and to be
disbarred, Gadzama hurriedly informed the court of his intention to
withdraw his appearance in the case and followed this up by filing
an affidavit to the same effect. He argued that having done so,
Gadzama is estopped from changing his mind and continuing to act as
counsel to Petro Union.

More so, he posited that having been instructed on a contingency
fee basis which means that his fee is tied to a portion of the
judgment sum and having been instructed through an irrevocable
power of attorney, he could not be debriefed.

Mr. Gadzama drew the Court’s attention to the letter to the
Chief Registrar and affidavit of confirmation of legal
representation filed by Petro Union confirming that he was their
Lead Counsel. The court also directly inquired from the three
Directors of Petro Union present in Court who their lawyers are and
they each reiterated and confirmed in that their lead lawyer
remains Gadzama and that they had asked Egwuonwu to work together
with him to no avail.

Following this confirmation, the court informed Egwuonwu that he
could no longer be heard in the proceedings.

This paved the way for Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN leading
other senior lawyers for the Appellants, to introduce his pending
application.

Lawyers for the other Respondents – CBN, Minister of Finance and
the Attorney-General of the Federation, Damian Dodo, SAN and
Ghazali, SAN informed the court that they were not opposing the
application of the Applicant – Union Bank but Mr. Gadzama on behalf
of the 1st Respondent (Petro Union) told the court that he had
filed a preliminary objection to the application on the ground that
the same application for leave to appeal against the same Court of
Appeal decision was earlier heard on the merits and dismissed by
the Supreme Court on 16th December, 2019.

Owing to the nature of the new application, the court adjourned
the hearing in the case to 7th October, 2021.