A Federal High Court, in Lagos, on Tuesday adjourned hearing in the suit filed by Ecobank Nigeria Limited against Otudeko Adedamola, son of Dr Oba Otudeko and eight others, over 6,314,116,229 shares in Barbican Capital Limited.
Justice Deinde Dipeolu had initially fixed Tuesday for the hearing in suit number FHC/L/CS/638/2025, but the judge adjourned proceedings due to non-service on some of the defendants.
The other defendants in the matter include Barbican Capital Limited; Honeywell Flour Mills of Nigeria Plc; Siloam Global Services Limited; Oyeleye Foluke; FBN Holdings Plc; the Corporate Affairs Commission and the Nigerian Stock Exchange.
In the suit, Ecobank, through its counsel, Mr Kunle Ogunba (SAN), is seeking two main reliefs:
“An interlocutory order restraining Otudeko Obafemi Adedamola and the other defendants, whether collectively or individually, from taking any steps to amortise, dematerialise, compromise, sell, transfer or otherwise deal with the 6,314,116,229 aggregate shares of Barbican Capital Limited in FBN Holdings Plc, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.”
The bank is seeking “an interlocutory order restraining all the defendants from converting the dematerialised shares of Honeywell Flour Mills Plc, pledged to Ecobank in furtherance of a credit facility into cash or any negotiable instrument, pending final determination of the matter.”
Ogunba told the court that the motion was brought pursuant to Order 26 Rules 5(1) and 6(1) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) 2019; Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution; and the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
He further stated that the application was supported by a 38-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Mr Jafaru Kupa, a Financial Officer at Ecobank, and accompanied by a written address and several documentary exhibits.
At the resumed hearing, Ogunba led the Ecobank legal team, while Mr Bode Olanipekun (SAN), Mr Ade Adedeji (SAN), and Mr Taiwo Osipitan (SAN) appeared for the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants, respectively.
Mr Ademola Adesina appeared under protest for the 4th and 5th defendants, while Ms Abiola Ogundare and Mr Luqman Salman represented the 6th and 7th defendants.
Explaining his appearance under protest, Adesina said the 4th and 5th defendants had not been personally served with the originating processes, claiming they only became aware of the suit through online reports.
In response, Ogunba noted that the court had, at the last adjourned date, ordered the defendants to show cause why the injunctions sought should not be granted.
He confirmed receipt of various court documents from the defence that and expressed readiness to proceed.
Ogunba also maintained that the defendants were properly served, citing court records.
Justice Dipeolu, after examining the court file, confirmed that there was indeed proof of service on record.
However, Adesina countered, stating, “The proof of service indicates one Mayowa received the processes on behalf of the 4th and 5th defendants, which does not amount to personal service as required by the Rules.”
In a rejoinder, Ogunba argued that the purpose of service is to notify the party of the action. Now that they have legal representation, the presumption is they are aware. He then offered to serve Adesina in court.
But Adesina declined, stating, “I cannot accept personal service on behalf of the 4th and 5th defendants.”
Consequently, Justice Dipeolu ordered that the 4th and 5th defendants be properly served with the originating processes.
The matter was subsequently adjourned until May 15, 2025, for further proceedings.