Justice M.B. Idris of the Federal High Court, Lagos Division has once again refused Ecobank’s application to suspend the Honeywell’s suit against it.
The Court stated that it cannot grant Ecobank’s application because the Federal High Court is bound by the final judgement of the Court of Appeal, which was delivered on March 30, 2016, directing that the matter be given an accelerated hearing at the Federal High Court.
The Honeywell suit was instituted in 2015.
Honeywell’s prayer is a determination as to whether or not it is indebted to Ecobank.
In response to this suit, Ecobank challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to hear the suit.
This objection was rejected by the Federal High Court and Justice Idris ruled that the Court indeed had jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Ecobank appealed this decision at the Court of Appeal.
Aligning with the decision of the Federal High Court on its jurisdiction to hear the matter, the Court of Appeal by its judgement of March 30, 2016 dismissed Ecobank’s appeal and ordered the accelerated hearing of the matter before Justice Idris.
When the matter last came up on May 10, 2016 following the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Ecobank’s counsel informed Justice Idris that a notice of appeal challenging the decision of the Court of Appeal had been filed at the Supreme Court.
An application for a stay of the execution of the judgment of the Court of Appeal had also be filed at the Court of Appeal.
Ecobank therefore requested that the proceedings before Justice Idris be stayed pending the outcome of the application for a stay of execution at the Court of Appeal.
Justice Idris refused Ecobank’s application for a stay and adjourned the matter to July 1, 2016 for parties to report on appeal.
At the hearing on Friday, Counsel to Honeywell, Bode Olanipekun, informed the Court that Ecobank’s application for stay of execution was struck out by the Court of Appeal on June 28, 2016 and urged the court for a short date to commence trial.
Ecobank’s counsel opposed the application on the ground that the appeal is now before the Supreme Court and therefore the court ought to stay proceedings on the matter.
In response, Honeywell’s counsel stated that Order 32 Rule 4 of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules is to the effect that a stay of proceedings cannot be granted the second time after it had been refused the first time.
Justice Idris in his ruling stated that March 30 judgement of the Court of Appeal remains binding and that Ecobank’s stay of proceedings cannot be granted.
The Judge thereafter adjourned the matter to November 2 and 4, 2016 for commencement of trial in the substantive suit.
Trending
- Delta CP presents over N47m to 22 deceased officers’ families
- Manage your temper, self-defence claims are for court to decide- Delta PPRO
- Senator Araraume mourns Ayogu Eze
- Fidelity Bank: Improved share price as growth indicator
- ‘Ijebu’ targets fame at GOtv Boxing Night 31
- Some states will experience earth shaking, disastrous flooding — Primate Ayodele
- Hajj 2024: NAHCON describes Gov. Uzodinma as pillar of support
- TUC wants FG to pay wage award for March, April