Witness narrates how Ex-HoS, allies diverted public funds to private companies in court
Supreme Court reserves ruling in Union bank’s legal battle against $15bn judgment debt
By Joseph Ayinde
The Supreme Court on Thursday, reserved ruling on a motion by Union Bank Plc seeking among others, leave to appeal against a June 5, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeal in which the bank and three others were ordered to pay an oil and gas firm, Petro Union Limited about $15 billion.
A five-member panel of the apex court, led by Justice Musa Dattijo, after listening to arguments by counsel in the matter, said they would be informed when the ruling was ready.
Counsel to the Union, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) while arguing the motion, said it contains nine reliefs, among which was an order for leave for extension of time to file an appeal and another order for leave to appeal under Order 6 Rule 2(1) of the Supreme Court’s Rules.
Awomolo said his clients seek to raise fresh grounds of appeal and introduce new evidence necessary for a fair and just determination of the matter by the court.
He noted that it was strange that, while the judgments of the Federal High Court, Abuja (delivered on March 11, 2014) and the subsequent one by the Court of Appeal (which affirmed the Federal High Court judgment) were based on a £2.556 billion cheque allegedly lodged in Union Bank by Petro Union, the said cheque was never tendered in court.
Awomolo said his client intends to show that Petro Union obtained both judgments by fraud, noting that Petro Union’s lawyer, Joe Gadzama (SAN) was only opposed to the grant of reliefs four and six out of the nine reliefs.
He urged the court to disregard the objection raised by Petro Union against his motion and prayed the court to grant his motion on merit.
Olabisisi Soyebo (SAN) for the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and Tijani Gazali (SAN) for the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Finance did not object to Union Bank’s motion.
Soyebo and Gazali, who said they did not file any process in relation to the motion, urged the court to grant it in view of the colossal amount involved and its possible implication on the nation’s economy, but Gadzama, in his response said he vehemently opposed the motion factually and in law. He predicated his objection on the ground that the same Supreme Court in its Judgment per Mary Odili, JSC had earlier dismissed a similar application by Union Bank and held that the appeal was incompetent. He posited that the Court was functus offio and urged the Court to allow the preliminary objection. On the substantive application, he argued that the additional evidence sought to be adduced by Union Bank was not credible and will also require calling of numerous witnesses at the Supreme Court, amongst others. Gadzama added that the said additional evidence sought to be adduced is one which was ordinarily supposed to be available at the time of trial and would have been tendered with due diligence. He concluded by submitting that Union Bank had not demonstrated the conditions to be allowed to adduced fresh evidence on appeal.
Gadzama urged the court to uphold the objection he raised and dismissed the motion on the grounds that Union Bank has not given valid and cogent reasons why leave should be granted it.
Earlier, the court finally resolved the dispute over who should represent Petro Union between Gazama and Onyechi Egwuonwu.
The court said, by its earlier ruling on July 5, 2021, it had found that Gadzama was the actual lawyer for Petro Union as indicated by the Company’s Directors who were present in Court and then barred Egwuonwu from further participating in the proceedings.
Petro Union had, in 1994 allegedly procured a cheque from a branch of Barclays Bank in the United Kingdom with a value of £2.556 billiob which is lodged in a Union Bank branch in Lagos under the pretext that the funds were to be used to construct three petrochemical refinery complexes and a bank in Nigeria.
On March 22, 2012, Petro Union sued at the Federal High Court, Abuja and sought among others, an order of mandamus compelling the CBN, Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, Minister of Finance and the Attorney-General of the Federation to pay it £2,556,000,000.00.
In the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/M/104/2012 Petro Union claimed that the money was deposited with Union Bank in 1994, adding that Union Bank received £2,556,000,000.00 on its behalf and transferred £2,159,221,318.54 to the CBN while it retained £396,778,681.46 as commission.
The defendants, Union Bank, CBN, Minister of Finance and AGF, in their separate counter-affidavits, denied Petro Union’s claims.
But, in the March 11, 2014 judgment, Justice Adamu Abdu-Kafarati of the Federal High Court, Abuja (now late) held, among others, that Union Bank was liable to Petro Union in the sum of £396,778,681.46 being the balance of Petro Union’s foreign capital which it supposedly deposited with the Bank in 1994 and that the CBN was liable to the oil firm for the sum of £2,159,221,318.54.
Out of the four defendants, only Union Bank and the CBN appealed the judgment of the Federal High Court.
On June 5, 2018, the Court of Appeal, Abuja gave judgment in the appeal by Union Bank and upheld the judgment by Justice Kafarati. It is yet to determine the sister appeal by the CBN.
