By Olasunkanmi Akoni

A LEGAL  practitioner, Mr. Martin Iwuegbu, has petitioned the Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, Justice Dahiru Musdapher over what he called “incredible” ex-parte order allegedly  granted by Hon. Justice Okechukwu Okeke of the Federal High Court in Suit No FHC/l/CP/1405/2011; Chief Anthony Obinwa v Alhaji Olapade Olagunju Mohammed & Ors.

Apparently, lamenting the skewed fate of one of his clients, AKS Steel Nigeria Limited, and the company’s Board Chairman, Alhaji Olapade Olagunju Mohammed, Iwuegbu asked the CJN  to intervene in the case and ensure that justice is indeed done.

In his petition, Iwuegbu said, there was an  ex-parte order granted by Hon. Justice Okeke based on a case filed by one Chief Anthony Obinwa against Alhaji Olapade Olagunju Mohammed & Ors.

Relationship with company
The lawyer said his client disclosed that Obinwa “has no relationship with our company except being an agent of one Satish Kashyap, a proxy to other investors in the company,” adding that the Judge had illegally appointed one Olusegun Bamidele Ajayi as the Receiver/Manager of the company.

Quoting Mohammed, Iwuegbu said, “I registered the company in 1984. The company produces steel/iron for building alongside AKS Rolling Mill. And I know that Obinwa has only 1000 shares till date. This is a case that we have won both at the Appeal and Supreme Courts.”

The petitioner, a retired Zonal Controller of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and former Chairman of Wema Bank Plc, said in his petition dated December 23, 2011, titled,  “Please Save Our Soul,” that Justice Okeke purportedly granted an ex-parte order on 15th December, 2011 and that the order be obeyed retrospectively from January, 2006.”

Lamenting the plight of his company, he noted, “our company and humble selves have been put under siege and threat by the said ex-parte order. On December 29, 2011, one Mr. Olusegun Bamidele Ajayi came in company of over 20 armed and fierce looking policemen to the premises of our company and drove everybody away, on the ground that the Federal High Court, per Okeke J. gave an ex-parte order appointing Olusegun Bamidele Ajayi as the Receiver/Manager of the company.”

Surprisingly, he said the ex-parte order, which was purported granted to the Petitioner and the  order of substituted service was wrong when the Petitioner knows the addresses of the Respondents and has not made any attempt whatsoever in putting any of them on notice in respect of the matter. In effect, we were not aware of the existence of this action before the far-reaching orders were made against our company and other Respondents.”

He said further, “We are not unaware that a court or tribunal can make an ex-parte order, but permit us to state that the way and manner his Lordship, Okeke J. has handled this matter leaves much to be desired.”

On the steps he  took, the petitioner stated : “With the greatest respect to the court, we applied for the certified true copies of all the processes filed in this action, but we met brick walls, as we were told by the court officials that they had strict instructions of His Lordship, Justice Okeke not to allow anybody have access to the file beside the fact that His Lordship had taken the file to his personal custody.

Curiously too, the extra copy of processes which every litigant at the Federal High Court is made to deposit with the Registry is equally missing and/or again was not released to us probably upon strict instruction.”

He said there is a pending action before the same Federal High Court in suit No: FHC/CS/1095/2006, the Court of Appeal in appeal No: CA/L/558m/09 and the Supreme Court in SC/101/2010, which are all in respect of the appointment of Olusegun Bamidele Ajayi as the Receiver/Manager of the company.

He urged the CJN to “investigate  the circumstances leading to the issuance of an ex-parte order by Justice Okeke on 15-12-2011 in respect of an ex-parte order application purportedly filed on 28-11-11 relating also to a matter or cause of action which arose on 20-01-06,” and that the CJN should invite them before a constituted panel to produce their evidence against the misuse of the ex-parte order by the court.