The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos will on October 21, 2024 resume proceedings in an alleged debt dispute between Anchorage Leisures Ltd & two others versus Ecobank Nigeria Ltd.

Justice Yellin Bogoro fixed the date to enable the 1st Defendant/Counter-Claimant (Ecobank) respond to the Affidavit for the Record filed by the Plaintiffs (Anchorage Leisures Ltd & two others).
The parties in the suit marked FHC/L/CS/352/2023 are Anchorage Leisures Limited, Siloam Global Limited and Honeywell Flour Mills Plc as Plaintiffs/Respondents, while Ecobank is the Defendant/Counterclaimant.

The suit arose following a January 27, 2023, Supreme Court judgment allegedly affirming the indebtedness of Honeywell and its cronies to Ecobank in the colossal sum of 13 Billion as at 2023.
But the Plaintiffs instituted the instant suit at the Federal High Court contending, among others, that the Supreme Court did not pronounce a figure in its Judgment.

At a prior hearing, the court following an application by Ecobank’s lawyer Kumle Ogunba SAN, granted the bank leave to join Dr. Oba Otudeko, Flour Mills and Honeywell Group Limited as additional defendants to its counterclaim seeking to recover the alleged debt.
The joined firms are or were either owned by or connected to Otudeko.
When the matter resumed Wednesday before Justice Bogoro, ‘Bode Olanipekun, SAN led a team on behalf of the 1st -3rd Plaintiffs/ Defendants to Counter-Claim, Ogunba led a team on behalf of the 1st Defendant/Counter Claimant Ade Adedeji, SAN led a team on behalf of the 4th Defendant to the Counter Claim, Abimbola Akeredolu, SAN led a team on behalf of the 5th Defendant to the Counter Claim while Taiwo Osipitan, SAN led a team on behalf of the 6th Defendant to the Counter Claim.

Olanipekun informed the court that the plaintiff had transmitted the record of appeal and also filed their brief of argument challenging the court’s decision. He applied that the matter should be adjourned sine die (indefinitely).
Opposing him, Ogunba drew the court’s attention to the proceedings of April 17, 2024, saying the court held that it would hear all pending applications, including the Plaintiff’s application for Stay of Proceedings, noting that the oral application by Olanipekun was contrary to the pronouncement of the court on the last adjourned date.

He argued that the oral application was an attempt to argue their application for stay of proceedings through the back door, in a bid to achieve the intended relief and to also undermine and frustrate the court’s proceedings.

Noting that the Affidavit for the record was only served on him that morning and that all the exhibits attached therein were never served on him, Ogunba prayed the court to refuse the plaintiff’s oral application, as the business of the day was to hear all pending applications and not to suffocate the day’s proceedings by a mid-stream application.

Following submissions by Ade Adedeji, SAN, Abimbola Akeredolu, SAN and Taiwo Osipitan, SAN, Justice Bogoro adjourned the matter to enable the 1st Defendant/Counter-Claimant respond to the Affidavit for the Record filed by the Plaintiffs.
The matter was thereafter adjourned to 21st October, 2024 for hearing.