Ex-Daily Times editor sues INEC over non-pament of contract fees

on   /   in News 9:00 pm   /   Comments


Former Editor of the Daily Times Nigeria Plc and  media consultant, Mr. Ken Ugbechie, has dragged the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, before an Abuja High Court over alleged refusal of the commission to pay him for contract executed.

Ugbechie, publisher of the Political Economist,  Plc., through his firm, Godson & Godman in the suit,  is demanding the sum of N7.5 million being the contract sum as well as 10 percent interest on the judgment debt starting from the date judgment is entered until same was liquidated.

Ugbechie in his statement of claim said that his company Godson & Godman was on January 19, 2010, awarded contract by INEC to inspire and generate expository articles, commentaries, news analysis, editorial and comments amongst other to sufficiently enlighten the electorate on all that the commission was doing to ensure hitch-free election of the 2011 general elections.

He averred in an affidavit in support of the suit that said contract was thoroughly verified by the officers of INEC after completion.

According to him, despite repeated demands, the defendant has refused to pay the N7.5 million due to his company, since the contract was executed.

According to him, the refusal by the defendant to fulfill her financial obligations in the contract, had adversely affected the business of the plaintiff.

He averred further that he had written several letters for payment of the contract sum to no avail, adding his lawyer also wrote INEC demanding the payment of the money without success.

He added that after the receipt of the plaintiff’s solicitors’ demand letter, the defendant referred the matter to its department on Alternative Dispute Resolution, ADR, adding that his lawyer also had a meeting with the director of the defendant’s ADR, wherein it was decided that the matter be referred to the Public Affairs Department for confirmation.

He added that the Public Affairs Department of the defendant, had since confirmed that the contract was creditably executed by the plaintiff, but despite of the above confirmation, the defendant was yet to pay the said contract sum to the plaintiffs.

    Print       Email