|
(5.)
SUIT NO. FHC/MN/CS/15/08 – WEALTHGATE MULTIBIZ INTERNATIONAL
LTD VS SEC & CBN
The
Plaintiff filed this action at the Federal High Court Minna, Niger
State, against the Commission and the Central Bank of Nigeria
(CBN) by an originating summons dated April 30, 2008.
The
Plaintiff is one of the respondents amongst the 37 illegal Fund
managers sued by the Commission at the Investments and Securities
Tribunal (IST) in SEC VS ALLGREEN & 37 ORS
In
the originating summons, the Plaintiff is claiming the following
reliefs:
1.
A declaration that in so far as the Commission’s requirement
for registration as fund/portfolio manager includes submission
of applicant’s latest audited accounts/statements of affairs
of the Plaintiff’s business preceeding the said registration
is not illegal.
2.
An order of court restraining the Commission from interfering
with the business activities of the Plaintiff as a fund/portfolio
manager on the ground of non-registration.
3.
An order directing the Commission to retract its earlier publication
in a daily newspaper that the Plaintiff is an illegal operator
in the capital market.
In
support of the originating summons, the Plaintiff sworn to a 17
paragraphs affidavit and exhibited their MEMART and further deposed
that they have taken all necessary steps of registration as fund
managers and it was the Commission that required them to carry
on pre-registration business activities as a fund manager for
the purpose of fulfillment and submission of Audited accounts/statement
of affairs in order to ascertain profit of the company.
The
Plaintiff further filed a Motion on Notice dated May 13, 2008
which is slated for hearing on Wednesday 21st June 2008.
In
the Motion on Notice the Applicant is praying the court for the
following reliefs:
1.
An order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Commission
and the other respondents from harassing or arresting the Plaintiff’s
staff or directors in the course of carrying on its activities
as fund/portfolio managers or in any way interfering with the
said business as to cause same to cease or to be suspended until
the determination of the substantive suit.
The substantive matter is slated to come up on July 1, 2008 while
the Motion on Notice is coming up on July 21, 2008
(4.)
SUIT NO. FHC/MN/CS/14/08 – SILVERTRUST GLOBAL INVESTMENT
LTD VS SEC & CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA (CBN)
The
Commission is the defendant in the above mentioned matter which
has been filed at the Federal High Court Minna, Niger State.
The
Plaintiff had applied to the Commission for registration as a
Fund/Portfolio Manager, subsequent upon which an application fee
of N5,000 was paid to the Commission.
The
Commission availed the Company with the registration requirements
as contained in Rule 37(1) of the Rules and Regulation which among
others included the audited accounts/statement of affairs and
profit of the Company.
The
Company was also required to pay N100,000 as registration fee
and also show evidence of minimum paid up capital of N500 million.
The
Company went ahead and commenced business as Fund/Portfolio Managers
before meeting up with the Commission’s requirements thereby
operating illegally as a fund manager.
The
Company feels aggrieved by the Commission’s publication
in the “Nation” newspaper of February 12, 2008 stating
that the Company is an illegal operator acting without authorization.
They
alleged further that as a result of the publication, the Plaintiff
has lost customers and they have had to close down, so they are
unable to meet up with the registration requirements.
The
Plaintiffs are seeking the following reliefs:
1.
A Declaration that in so far as the 1st Defendant’s requirement
for registration as Fund/Portfolio Manager includes submission
of latest audited accounts/statement of affairs of the Plaintiffs
business preceding the registration is not illegal.
2.
An Order restraining the Commission from interfering with the
business activities of the Plaintiff as a Fund/Portfolio Manager
on the ground of non-registration.
3.
An Order directing the Commission to retract its earlier publication
in a daily newspaper that the Plaintiff is an illegal operator
in the capital market.
The
matter is slated to come up on July 1, 2008
Litigations
on Cadbury Matter
(3.)
SUIT
NO. FHC/L/CS/440/2008 – AYO AKADIRI VS SEC
The
above suit has been filed against the Commission at the Federal
High Court Lagos.
The
Applicant has, through an ex-parte application, been granted the
following:
1.
order of certiorari to remove to the court for quashing, the decision,
determination or conclusion of the Commission through the Administrative
Proceedings Committee (APC) in so far as it affects the applicant;
2.
order of prohibition restraining the Commission from taking further
steps against the applicant in relation to or in consequence of
the APC;
3.
order of injunction restraining the Commission from taking any
step or doing anything in consequence of the APC which adversely
affect the applicant;
4.
a declaration that the APC itself is unconstitutional, illegal,
null and void;
5.
a declaration that it is unlawful and unconstitutional, null and
void for the respondent to have indirectly seized or confiscated
the private shares of the applicant through the decision of the
APC;
6.
a declaration that the respondent does not have the constitutional
power to prevent or restrain the applicant from practicing his
profession not being the appropriate professional body since the
applicant did not obtain his license or certified authority to
practice his profession from the respondent;
7.
a declaration that the power of the respondent to prescribe or
impose at its discretion indeterminate punishment on the applicant
is null and void;
8.
an order setting aside all the decisions, declarations, deliberations
and conclusions of the respondent in so far as it affects the
applicant.
The
motion on notice praying for leave to apply for judicial review
of the APC decision was slated for Wednesday 30th April 2008.
By
the terms of the motion, the applicant is challenging the decisions
of the APC in respect of the matter of misstatement in the Cadbury
Nig. Plc accounts.
(2.)
SUIT NO: FHC/L/430/08 – RT. HON. UDUIMO ITSUELI Vs SEC
The
above suit had been filed at the Court, by the applicant, Dr Uduimo
Itsueli, the Chairman of Cadbury Nig. Plc, against the decision
of the Administrative Proceedings Committee (APC) of the Commission.
The
Applicant in the matter had secured an ex-parte order of the Court
for the enforcement of his Fundamental Human Rights.
In
his Motion on Notice dated April 17, 2008, the Applicant is praying
the Court for a declaration that:
1.
the procedure leading to the decision against the applicant by
the Commission did not secure the fairness, independence and impartiality
of the Commission and APC as required under Section 36 of the
1999 constitution;
2.
the APC decision of March 27 and 28, 2008 reached in the absence
of and without notice to the applicant violated the applicant’s
Fundamental Human Right of fair hearing guaranteed under Section
36 of the 1999 Constitution;
3.
that the entire decision making process of the Commission particularly
the decision reached against the applicant is unconstitutional;
4.
that the decision disqualifying the applicant from holding directorship
position in any public company for a period of one year when he
has not been proved guilty or convicted of any offence usurp the
powers of the Court vis-à-vis the qualification of directors
in the management of companies and therefore null and void.
The
applicant further prayed the Court for the following orders:
1.
an order restraining the Commission from confirming and/ or enforcing
or giving effect to the decision reached in the absence of the
applicant;
2.
an order quashing the decision of the APC at the sitting on March
27 and 28, 2008;
3.
an order nullifying the proceedings of the APC on March 27 and
28, 2008 on the ground that they violate the applicant’s
Fundamental Human Rights enshrined in the 1999 Constitution.
The
Motion on notice is slated for hearing on April 29, 2008.
(1.)
SUIT NO. FHC/L/CS/414/08 – OLUSEGUN OYEWOLE VS SEC &
ORS
The
above suit has been filed at the Court, by the applicant, Olusegun
Oyewole, one of the non-executive Directors of Cadbury Nig. Plc,
against the decision of the Administrative Proceedings Committee
(APC) of the Commission.
The
Applicant sought an ex-parte order of the Court for leave to enforce
his Fundamental Human Rights.
In
a motion on notice dated April 15, 2008 the applicant is seeking
for the following reliefs:
1.
a declaration that the entire process of investigation, hearing
and the decision taken by the APC of the Commission against him
did not accord him fair hearing and same be declared null and
void;
2.
an order of the court restraining the Commission from giving effect
to the decision of the APC taken on 27th and 28th March, 2008
against the applicant;
3.
an order to nullify and set aside the entire action of the Commission
taken against the applicant on 27th and 28th March, 2008 on the
ground that it violated the applicant’s fundamental rights
to fair hearing under the 1999 Constitution.
The
Motion is slated for hearing on April 29, 2008
|
