£654m ‎judgment against Akingbola ‘invalid in Nigeria’

A federal high court in Lagos on Monday held that the judgment of a London court ordering Erastus Akingbola, former managing director of defunct Intercontinental Bank, to pay Access Bank £654 million (N212.2 billion) is not enforceable in Nigeria.

Chukwujeku Aneke, the justice who made the order, dismissed an application filed to that effect by Access Bank. A Lagos high court in Igbosere had also rejected a similar application filed by Access Bank.

The order of the Lagos high court had prompted Access Bank to approach the federal high court.

On August 1, 2012, the high court of justice, Queens Bench in London, had ordered Akingbola to pay Access Bank £654 million (N212.2 billion) for some fraudulent practices committed when he was in charge of the defunct bank.

Access Bank, it would be recalled, acquired Intercontinental Bank on January 31, 2012.

In a bid to enforce the London court judgment in Nigeria, Access Bank had approached A.A Oyebanji, justice of Lagos high court, with an ex parte application.

The bank, in the ex parte application, sought to register the foreign judgment and the accompanying order of Michael Burton, dated September 13, 2012.

Oyebanji had acceded to the request of Access Bank by registering the London judgment and ordering Akingbola to pay the judgment sum.

But, Akingbola, through his lawyer, Wole Olanipekun (SAN), filed an application dated September 27, 2013, asking Babajide Candide-Johnson, justice of the Lagos high court, to quash the registration of the foreign judgment for lack of jurisdiction.

Candide-Johnson had discharged the ex parte order made by Oyebanji on the ground that Access Bank’s move contravened provisions of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgment Act of 1958.

He also declared that the Lagos high court lacked jurisdiction to register the judgment.

The judge held that the subject matter of the judgment, which was alleged unlawful share purchase orchestrated by the bank and Akingbola’s breach of statutory duties as director of defunct Intercontinental Bank, were matters relating to the provisions of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), which the British judge admitted he relied totally on, but which only Nigerian courts and specifically federal high court could properly exercise jurisdiction on.

Candide-Johnson further held that since federal high courts alone had exclusive jurisdiction on CAMA-related cases, his court could not have entertained the claims leading up to the judgment and consequently could not register same as that would make it a judgment of the court.

However, the judge refused Akingbola’s prayer seeking to restrain Access Bank from enforcing the London judgment in any other court.

“Instead of granting such order, the proper order to make in this case is to strike out the entire suit and same is hereby struck out,” Candide-Johnson ruled.

While arguing the case on behalf of his client (Akingbola), Olanipekun stressed that the judgment creditor (Access Bank) failed to comply with condition precedent before the registration could be completed.

He submitted that section 251 of the constitution vested the jurisdiction on federal high court and not on state high court.

Responding in a counter-affidavit dated October 10, 2013, counsel to Access Bank, Olaniwun Ajayi (SAN), submitted that the proposition that only the federal high court had jurisdiction to register foreign judgments should be discountenanced.

He submitted that the state high courts had unlimited power to look into the matter. However, in a ruling on Monday, Aneke also turned down the application and ruled that the judgment was not enforceable in Nigeria.