Court Asked To Commit Wirepick Nigeria Directors, CAC DG To Prison Over Contempt
A Lagos business man PRINCE OBAFEMI ADEREMI ADELUSI has filed an application before a Federal high court in Lagos, seeking the order of the court for the committal of alleged three contemnors, NATHANIEL IBITOWA, BODE AKINBOYE and the Director General of Corporate Affairs Commission to correctional center for having deliberately disobey and refused to comply with the order of the court
According to the application accompanied with affidavit in support of form 49 :Notice to show cause why an order of committal should not be made sworn to by the plaintiff Obafemi Aderemi Adelusi,and filed before the court by a Lagos lawyer Barrister Dapo Oduwole,
The grounds upon which the application is predicated are:
There is dispute over the management and control of the Ist Defendant WIREPICK NIGERIA LIMITED COMPANY,RC1343276 which initially was registered with the name of the 5th Defendant,WIREPICK MOBILE NIGERIA LIMITED RC1820246
Due to the dispute, NATHANIEL IBITOWA and BODE AKINBOYE who are 2nd and 3rd Defendants respectively in this suit re-registered 5th Defendant WIREPICK MOBILE LIMITED RC18202246 to give coloration to the public that the first defendant changed its name back to its original name. Thus, trade with the licenses obtained in the name of the 1st defendant.
The 2nd and 3rd Defendants upon having Issues to renew the licenses and adamant not to pay the salary and bonuses of the Plaintiff by email dated November, 2024 scheduled Extraordinary General Meeting of the 1st Defendant to hold virtually on 22nd November, 2024 at I2 noon.
The Plaintiff thereafter approached this Honourable Court on 11th November, 2024 seeking sundry reliefs.
The Court directed the Defendants to show cause why the Order for Interim Injunction should not be granted.
On 21st November, 2024, the Court directed parties to maintain status quo.
However despite the directives of the Court made in the presence of the Defendants’ counsels the 2nd and 3rd Defendants proceeded to remove the Plaintiff as director and shareholder of the 1st Defendant and backdated the resolution to 29th October, 2024 in a bid to create an impression that the resolution was passed before the order of this Court directing parties to maintain status quo was made on 21st November, 2024.
Prior to the filing of this suit, the Plaintiff conducted a search on the website of the 7th Defendant Corporate Affairs Commission on 4th November, 2024 which revealed that the Plaintiff is a Director and holds 49% of the shares of the Company Defendant.
By the search conducted on the website of the CAC on 7th January, 2025 in respect of the status of the |st Defendant company,showed that the Plaintiff was removed as Director and shareholder of the |Defendant in flagrant disregard of the order of this Honourable Court.
The 7th Defendant CORPORATE AFFAIRS COMMISSION CAC who is also a party to this suit neglected to decline the change in the directors and shareholders of the 1st defendant.
Despite the letter written to the 7th
Defendant as well as service of the Form 48 on the Registrar General of the CAC 7th Defendant. the three Contemnors herein, are yet to reverse the steps taken by them.
The 2nd and 3rd Contemnors had further instigated the EFCC to demand for some of the documents of the 1st Defendant in possession of the Plaintiff
The Contemnors have wilfully and deliberately refused to comply with the order of the Court made on 21st November,2024.
It is total disrespect to the coercive power of the Court for the contemnors to deliberately disobey the order of the Court and go scot-free.
In order to sustain and maintain the integrity of the Court parties to a suit are bound to obey valid extent orders of the court. so as to ensure the public confident in the judicial system.
Except the Contemnors ere committed to Correctional Centre for disobeying misconstruing and misapplying the valid order of court. the Contractors will continue to bring the Court to disrepute.
The Applicant gave reasonable notice to the Contemnors but they persisted in bringing the Court to disrepute by continuing to deliberately refused to comply with the order of the Court. The grant of this application will preserve the integrity of the Court and prevent the Applicant who is law abiding citizen and believes in the rule of law from being oppressed by the Contemnors.
Consequently the plaintiff is seeking the following orders from the court:
An Order for the Committal of the Contemnors to Correctional Centre for having deliberately disobeyed and refused to comply with the Order made by the Court
An Order of this Honourable Court setting aside the resolution of the 1st Defendant orchestrated by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants/1st and 2nd
Contemnors which purportedly removed the Plaintiff as Director and shareholder of the 1st Defendant.
An Order of this Honourable Court directing the CAC to delete from its record as it relates to the 1st Defendant the changes made to the Directors and shareholders of the 1st Defendant.
However,in an affidavit sworn to by Secretary in the law firm of SHAIBU ALARAN and Associates Ibijoke Akinshowon, ,in response to the application for committal,the deponent averred,that the Form 48 alleged,the deponent served on the 2nd and 3rd Respondents was not properly endorsed in compliance with the law.
That service of Forms 48, and the application for contempt proceedings should be personally made on the person against whom the committal proceedings is instituted.
That the service of Form 48 and the Motion on notice for contempt proceedings was made on the 2nd and the 3rd Respondents via substituted means, by sending copies of the processes via email addresses of the 2nd and the 3rd Respondents without an order of court to serve through such means is invalid
About The Author
