The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a suit challenging the late Kalabari High Chief Olu Benson Lulu-Briggs’ transfer of his shares in Moni Pulo Limited to his wife, Dr. Seinye O. B. Lulu-Briggs, his daughters and the O. B. Lulu-Briggs Foundation.

The suit was filed by the Chairman of Platform Petroleum, Chief Dumo Lulu-Briggs and three others urging the court to hold that the 268,445,000 shares of the 1st to 3rd plaintiffs in Muno Pulo Limited, amounting to 67.1% of the company’s shares, “were not outrightly transferred to High Chief Olu Benson Lulu-Briggs (“the Deceased”) but were given to him by the Plaintiffs to hold in trust for their benefit.”

Justice James Omotosho however held that the suit by Dumo Lulu-Briggs, marked Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1481/2021, was the same as Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1576/2019 which was discontinued by an order of court per retired Justice Taiwo Taiwo on September 30, 2021, and which appeal is pending before the Court of Appeal. The judge held that the instant suit was a “gross abuse” of court processes.

The 1st to 4th plaintiffs in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1481/2021 are Mr. Senibo Lulu-Briggs, Chief Dumo Lulu-Briggs, Sofiri Lulu-Briggs, and Chima Onimim Lulu-Briggs.

The defendants are Mrs. Seinye Peterba Lulu-Briggs, Incorporated Trustees of O. B. Lulu-Briggs Foundation, Rachael Lulu-Briggs, Solate Ovundah-Akarolo, Moni Pulo Limited and Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC).

The defendants had challenged the plaintiffs’ claims and asked the court to consider if having “freely, unequivocally and fully” transferred their entire shareholding to the Late O. B. Lulu-Briggs in two settlements, and having received consideration which the plaintiffs acknowledged as valuable and sufficient for such transfer, the plaintiffs could rightly turn around to impugn the share transfer.

The defendants put the consideration at $3 million to Dumo Lulu-Briggs in 2003 and $5 million to Dumo Lulu-Briggs, Senibo Lulu-Briggs and Sofiri Lulu-Briggs in 2004.

They also asked the court to consider whether the action was not statute-barred, having been filed 12 years after the date of the Consent Judgment on May 18, 2004.

Justice Omotosho agreed with the defendants. His words: “Consequently, I hold without hesitation that filing a fresh suit on a subject between parties on appeal is an abuse of court process. The fresh suit as in the instant suit is nothing than to over reach and make the outcome of the pending appeal nugatory.”

The court further held that “Filing this instant suit on the same subject matter and reliefs and against the same parties is vexatious and nothing more than a gross abuse of the process of the Court.”

Continuing, the court held: “The Court therefore agrees with argument of the 1st-5th Defendants that the suit is an abuse of Court process. This court will not allow its processes to be used in such a frivolous and vexatious manner. Consequently, the instant suit before the court is hereby declared to be an abusive process and as such it is dismissed.

“Having dismissed the suit for being an abuse of Court process, the other issue formulated goes to no issue.”

To join our Telegram platform, please click here 

COPYRIGHT 2022 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on TWITTER at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083.

All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.