-Plaintiff attributed problems with 9 mobile to the mismanagement of its funds.
-Demand refund of $43,330,950,being monies invested
-Case adjourned to May 14 for mention

A Federal High Court in Abuja, has ruled that status quo should remain, in the planned sale of 9mobile , following opposition to the move by some aggrieved shareholders who claimed to be major investors.

The investing companies are Afdin Ventures Limited and Dirbia Nigeria Limited. They alleged being left out in the firm’s decision making process and demanded for a refund of $43,330,950 invested in the telecommunication company. They claimed, in a supporting affidavit, through the General Manager of the first plaintiff and a director in the second plaintiff, Sani Ibrahim, that the problem with Etisalat resulted from the mismanagement of its funds.

The defendants to the suit (FHC/ABJ/CR/288/2018) were Karlington Telecommunications Ltd, Premium Telecommunications Holdings NV, First Bank of Nigeria Plc, Central Bank of Nigeria, Etisalat International Nigeria Ltd and Nigerian Communication Commission (NCC) .

Justice Binta Nyako, on April 17,2018, after hearing plaintiffs’ lawyer, Mahmud Magaji (SAN) who moved an ex-parte motion ,thereafter ruled that “an order is made for the maintenance of the status quo as at today.” The Judge said the defendants ought to be heard and also ordered the service of processes on them including the third and fifth (First Bank and Etisalat), whose addresses were outside jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs had claimed that they bought shares in Etisalat from the first and second defendants (Karlington Ltd and Premium Holdings) through a private placement memorandum in which the third defendant (First Bank) served as a custodian of the plaintiffs’ share certificate. They also declared that while the first plaintiff (Afdin Ventures) “bought 1,300,391 Class A shares at $13,003,910,” which it paid for on August 14, 2009, the second plaintiff (Dirbia Ltd) acquired 3,300,004 Class A shares at $30,030,040, for which it made payment on September 3, 2009,through First Bank accounts.

The judge ordered that “the writ be marked as concurrent” and adjourned the case to May 14 for mention.

https://www.financialdigest.com.ng