By Jack Kalio, Port Harcourt
Attempts by Sterling Bank to seize the properties of an indigenous company, Zomay Marines and Logistics Limited, over alleged debts whose authenticity and exactitude are yet to be determined, has been restrained by the Rivers State High Court presided over by Justice Frank Onyiri.
Justice Onyiri on Friday, April 11, issued a restraining order against attempts by the bank or its agents to confiscate or sell any property belonging to Zomay Marines and Logistics Limited, over claims of disputing debts by the company, a matter that is already before the court for determination.
The order of the court was based on an interlocutory application brought by Counsel to Zomay Marine and Logistics Limited, Chief Chris Okeke, SAN, seeking to stop the commercial bank from sealing off and taking over the company’s properties in Lagos, Abuja and Port Harcourt, which according to them, were used as collaterals in obtaining the loan that has turned controversial.
The applicants disclosed to the court that the Sterling Bankhad already shut down some properties belonging to the company and had audaciously frozen the company’s account in total defiance of an earlier order by the court, stressing that the bank also acted in bad faith by concealing the appointment of receiving managers to the company’s properties.
The court, in its ruling, observed that the defendants had failed to reveal the entire debt owed by Zomay Marine and Logistics Limited to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), during a reconciliatory engagement by the apex bank and required by law, and that an independent investigation commissioned by the company had raised key issues which Sterling Bank would be required to respond to.
On the question of whether the application was an abuse of judicial process, the court noted that the applicants had already served the defendants an order issued by the court on 4th of March, 2025 to maintain status quo ante before proceeding to file another suit at the Federal High Court, and that the court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit since it was filed before the applicants became aware of the pendency of another suit.
Justice Onyiri observed that from the evidence before the court, Zomay Marine and Logistics Limited had paid an amount it believed to be its total indebtedness to the bank, only to have its account frozen and properties sealed up while issues of reconciliation arising from conflicting claims were yet to be concluded by the CBN.
It was the decision of the court that the essence of granting the interlocutory injunction was to stop any further injury on the claimant who had proven that it has legal rights which have been threatened and breached, and that the process sought to preserve such rights has already been initiated.
The pending suit, according to the judge, is to resolve the actual amount owed Sterling Bank by Zomay Marine and Logistics Limited, a situation that he said made the action of the bank in sealing up the property of the company evidently embarrassing, because it could lead to business losses, harm public trust and damage earned goodwill.
In granting the application Justice Onyiri held that “An order of interlocutory is hereby issued restraining the defendants/respondents, agents, servants, privies or whosoever from continuing with the process of annihilating the properties of the claimant/applicants used as collateral pending the determination of the suit.
“An order of interlocutory is hereby issued restraining the defendants/respondents, agents, servants, privies or whosoever from continuing with the process of confiscating, decipating, or sale of properties of the claimant/applicants used as collateral pending the determination of the suit.”
The judge thereafter adjourned the matter to May 29 for commencement of pre-trial conference.
In an interview with journalists shortly after the ruling, Barrister Frank Okpara who held brief for Chief Okeke, SAN, stated that the court dismissed the preliminary objection of the respondents because they failed to disclose material facts regarding the debt while filing their objection.
“We filed this suit not knowing that they had filed another suit at the Federal High Court where they failed to disclose material facts too. So, the court on the premise of failure to come in good faith and non-disclosure of fiduciary interest which they owe every party dismissed their preliminary objection.
“We filed an application which is a motion for injunction for all parties to maintain status quo until the determination of this suit. The court has also granted that motion for injunction, reason being that they failed to disclose material facts, material exhibits that they were taking this matter to the Federal High Court.
“Two, that they also failed to allow the negotiation that was ongoing to be exhausted.
“Three, that again, they also did not disclose to the court that these people have paid some amounts and that this is the amount remaining, on which premise the court found their applications unworthy and rather granted an injunction which was filed by the claimant for parties to maintain status quo ante, for them to vacate the area and for them not to take any further step in respect to the properties of the claimant.”
