Daily Times- Anosike, Others Appeal Judgment

Folio Communications Limited and its owners, Fidelis Anosike have challenged the judgment of the Federal High Court which last week voided its majority shareholding in Daily Times of Nigeria (DTN) at the Court of Appeal in Lagos. This is coming as a petition has been sent to the Commissioner of Police, Special Anti Fraud Unit by L A Idu, Company Secretary, Daily Times of Nigeria, urging the Police to take consideration of the recent judgment of Justice Okechukwu Okeke of the Federal High Court, which held that the Folio Communication, Fedelis Anosike, Charles Anosike and Noel Anosike have ceased to be shareholders of Daily Times of Nigeria having not paid any kobo for the shares they hitherto held in the company (DTN). According to the petitioner, the suspects have been allegedly removed from the Board of Directors of Daily Times of Nigeria in vide a board resolution dated February 1, 2010. Among the allegations leveled against them is the alleged stealing of N400 million, being part of the proceeds in respect of the Nigerian Stock Exchange in collusion with some officers of some Federal Government Agencies. Justice Okechuwku Okeke had voided the majority stake of Folio Communications Limited and its owners Fidelis Anosike in DTN, saying that since it did not pay for the 140,252,900 shares (i.e 56 per cent) allotted to it in DTN, the shares be reverted back to the company (DTN). Others who lost out in the judgment are Fidelis' brothers, Charles Anosike and Noel Anosike. But dissatisfied, the appellants, in their Notice of Appeal, prayed the appellate court to set aside the judgment, arguing that it was delivered without hearing the issue of jurisdiction raised by the appellant. The appellants through their lawyer, Chike Ekeocha from the law firm of Dr Alex Izenyon (SAN), is also asking for an order of court remitting the case to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for re- assignment to another Judge to hear the issue of locus standi of the petitioner, DSV Limited.

The appellants contented that the trial judge erred in law when he dismissed their application for leave to raise the issue of jurisdiction which challenged the locus standi of DSV Limited before the delivery of the judgment. They stated that the issue of jurisdiction cannot amount to arrest of judgment as the trial court ought to have allowed the application and consider the issue of jurisdiction raised before proceeding to deliver its judgment. They also contended that once the issue of jurisdiction is raised in a matter, it behoves on the trial judge to halt the proceedings and decide the issue one way or the other before proceeding to deliver his judgment. They maintained that the trial judge erred in law when he held that Folio Communications Limited did not pay for the 140, 252, 900 shares allotted to it. “The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that the suit of the Petitioner disclosed a cause of action contrary to the, consent judgment in suit No.: FHC/L/CS/594/05 and in the light of paragraphs 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 311, 32, 34, 35, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47 and 55 of the petition.” The appellant added that the petitioner (DSV Limited) was a party in the consent judgment in FHC/L/CS/594/05 arguing that by the said consent judgment, no party is allowed to file a fresh or new suit arising from the content of the said consent agreement. It added that by the said consent judgment, it was clear that by clause 1 of the recital that Folio Communications Ltd. was the majority shareholder of Daily Times Plc. by her acquisition of 96.05% of its shares as stated in the Share Sale Purchase Agreement (SSPA). The appellant stated that there was nothing illegal for Folio Communications to raise a loan from the defunct Hallmark Bank Plc for the purchase of the said shares after the acquisition of Daily Times. In addition, the appellant prayed the court to hold that the trial Judge erred in law when he held that the use of proceeds from the sale and mortgage of Daily Times [First Appellant] properties for the purchase of the shares of the first Appellant amounts to oppression against the petitioner and other minority shareholders.

By Davidson Iriekpen, THISDAY Wednesday, February 03, 2010