Court fixes date for mention in suit seeking winding up of Big Brother Naija sponsors

A Federal High Court in Lagos on Tuesday fixed October 16 for further mention in a suit seeking the winding up of the sponsors of the Big Brother Naija Show, Payporte Global System Limited.
The petition was filed by Vacant Board Limited.
Justice Ayokunle Faji fixed the date for further mention of the suit, which was earlier fixed for mention on Tuesday.
Ogedi Ogu appeared for the respondent, while Yemi Fajuyitan is counsel for the petitioner.
The case will now continue on the next date.
The petitioner had filed a debt recovery suit against Payporte, before a Lagos High Court in 2015.
The Court had in its judgment delivered on May 27, 2016 awarded the sum of N23.1 million against Payporte in favour of the petitioner.
The petitioner, however, contended that on February 27, 2017, the respondent made a part payment of N5 million, leaving a balance of N17.1 million, which it has failed to liquidate till date, despite several demand letters.
It, therefore, filed a winding up petition before the Federal High Court on December 29, 2017 asking it to wind up the company.
Meanwhile, in its notice of preliminary objection on April 25, the respondent is challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain or even hear the petition
Respondent counsel, Ogedi Ogu, contends that the said petition for winding up failed to comply with the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the Companies Winding-Up Rules, 2001.
He argued that no summons was filed by the petitioner, issued or sealed in respect of the said petition, adding that the failure rendered the petition null and void.
He said a failure of the petitioner to file and serve the summons before the commencement of the winding up suit robs the honourable court of jurisdiction to hear the suit as same cannot be competently activated in the petition as presently constituted.
Payporte contends that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner’s suit as same is defective, bad in law, null and void, and an abuse of court process.
It urged that the winding up suit be dismissed, with substantial cost awarded against the petitioner.