Appeal Court Suspend Interim Order On Seplat

 

The Court of Appeal has suspended the interim order by Federal High Court, Lagos, sealing Seplat Petroleum Development Company's offices.

The offices were sealed sequel to a court action launched by Access Bank Plc. over alleged unpaid loans by Cardinal Drilling Services Limited.

However, the appellate court, in a lead ruling by Justice Joseph Ikyegh, on an application by Seplat for an order of the Court suspending the interim order pending the determination its appeal held on Friday that Access Bank had nothing to lose should Seplat carry on with its businesses and  continue to discharge its obligations to its various customers.

The ruling was also concurred by two other justices of the court, Hon. Justice Bayero Abdullahi Mahmoud and Hon. Justice Umaru Abubakar, the court held that the balance of convenience favoured the petroleum company.

The Court of Appeal equally suspended the order stopping banks from fulfilling their banks-customers obligations to Seplat.

Justice Ikyegh, however, ordered the company to issue a bond of $20 million in the name of the Court's Chief Registrar, an order Seplat's counsel, Etigwe Uwa, SAN told the court had been fulfilled.

In suspending the FHC order, the Court of Appeal observed that since Seplat supplied gas to three power plants that generate almost 40 percent of power supply in Nigeria, it would be "bad and tragic" if the order was not suspended as the company would not be able to meet such an important commitment.

Although Access Bank’s counsel argued that suspending the interim order would amount to delving into the substantive matters that ought to be determined in the main appeal, the appellate court maintained that the bank had nothing to lose.

"The fear and anxiety expressed by the 1st Respondent (Access Bank) appeared unfounded. It would also not amount to hearing the substantive suit”, Justice Ikyegh held, that the Supreme Court had established the principle that in appropriate cases, the discretion of the court should be exercised in favour of the party that would suffer if the interim order was not lifted.

"The Supreme Court has held that where machines and workers would be rendered useless, the court would intervene.

"Disruption of business should be considered in the issue of balance of convenience. The court will exercise its discretion in suspending the injunction.

"Practical approach should be adopted and not do injustice to any of the parties.

"Where considerable hardship will be done to a party, the court will intervene by suspending the injunction or stay it.

 "I found substance in the argument. The injunction restraining the appellant from operating is hereby suspended.

"Order on its accounts are also lifted pending the determination of the appeal", he further held.

In an affidavit deposed to in support of the application, Seplat maintained that it had no links with the said loan or the fixed debenture with which the loan was secured, hence the lower court was wrong to have issued the orders against it.