Site icon Nairametrics

Federal High Court strikes out minority shareholders’ petition against Seplat

Federal High Court strikes out minority shareholders' Petition against Seplat

Article Summary


Seplat Energy has announced that the Federal High Court, sitting in Lagos, has struck out the Petition commenced on 8th March 2023 by Moses Igbrude, Sarat Kudaisi, Kenneth Nnabike, Ajani Abidoye, and Robert Ibekwe in Suit No. FHC/L/CP/402/2023 – Moses Igbrude & 4 others V. Seplat & 2 others.

This was contained in the company statement to the Nigerian Exchange Limited (NGX) and obtained by Nairametrics.

According to Seplat, as previously announced, the Petition led to ex-parte interim orders that ordered Mr. Roger Brown to step aside as the CEO of the company. However, the court later vacated the orders on 6th April 2023.

Seplat noted that the judicial outcome follows yesterday’s suspension by the Court of Appeal of the ex parte interim orders granted by the Federal High Court (Abuja) in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/626/2023 – Juliet Gbaka & 2 others v. Seplat Energy Plc & 13 others.

The statement signed by Mr. Basil Omiyi, Board Chairman reiterates the company’s confidence in the Nigerian Judiciary as it continues its systematic resolution of these orchestrated and frivolous litigations, which are aimed at disrupting the smooth operations of the Company.

News continues after this ad

What you should know

Seplat Energy yesterday said it was aware of certain media publications that the Federal High Court, per Hon. Justice I. E. Ekwo, sitting in Abuja in suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/626/2023 – Juliet Gbaka & 2 others v. Seplat Energy Plc & 13 others granted ex parte Interim Orders against Seplat Energy and some of its Officers.

The Interim Orders, which are yet to be served on the Company or any of the affected Officers, primarily restrain the Board Chairman, the named Independent Non-Executive Directors, the Chief Operating Officer, and the Company Secretary from operating or functioning as officers of Seplat Energy in any capacity or otherwise conducting the affairs of the Company.

It noted that the Company, as a law-abiding entity, has defended against the Interim Orders by immediately filing an Appeal and a Motion for a Stay of Execution of the Orders.

Exit mobile version