Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has struck out the application filed by two directors of Daily Times Nigeria Limited , DSV Limited and Senator Ikechukwu Obiorah, challenging the order of the court earlier granted in favour of Mike Nwachukwu.
Justice Nyako had while ruling on the ex-parte motion brought by Nwachukwu, restrained the two directors and their agents from further taking steps in any manner injurious and prejudicial to the interest of the plaintiff and Daily Times including but not limited to taking any step or decision emanating from the purported extraordinary general meeting of the company which held on January 31/1/2010.
But soon after the order was granted, DSV and Obiorah approached the court with a notice seeking to set aside the interim order on the ground that it was obtained by positive misrepresentation and suppression of facts.
They argued that DSV and Obiorah who are 1st and 2nd respondents in the suit concealed facts from the court and thereby misled it into granting the ex-parte order wrongfully when there are two valid and subsisting judgments before two courts.
Justice Nyako stated that she has read several authorities and cannot find in any of them where an order was set aside because the party did not disclose the existence of the existing cases, adding that the call was a different type of remedy but certainly not discharge of an interim order.
She submitted that what may call for a second look was what the relief sought ex-parte were vis-à-vis the affidavit in support of the motion and the originating process, saying without predetermining any other motions yet to be moved, the case was only calling for the interpretation/enforcement of the provision of Companies and Allied Matters (CAMA) as it related to calling of the meetings and removal or otherwise of directors.
The judge had also restrained the 1st and 2nd respondents and their agents from parading themselves as shareholders of Daily Times and exercising any power of control of shareholders of the company.
She also restrained the Corporate Affairs Commission (6th respondent) in the interim from carrying out, executing or exercising any of its statutory powers pursuant to the instructions or directives of the 1st and 2nd respondents in respect of the company pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.