A FEDERAL High Court, Lagos has adjourned till September 27 for ruling on the winding-up suit filed by Access Bank Plc against Lagos-based firm, Negris Holdings Limited over alleged N2.7 billion debt.
Trial judge, Justice Okon Efreti Abang fixed the date after taking submissions from counsel on the matter.
The judge, however, refused to vacate its earlier order made last February restraining the firm, its directors and agents from tampering with its funds in any bank or financial institution in the country pending the hearing and final determination of the application for the appointment of a provisional liquidator, saying  the ruling of September 27, will determine which way further proceedings in the matter will go.
Access Bank through its lawyer, Mr. Kunle Ogunba (SAN) had alleged that as one of its customers, as extended N2.7 billion depositors fund as dept facility to Negris, which it accepted thankfully with all the conditions through an offer letter dated July 18, 2008.
It stated that the amount was to finance the acquisition and take over of the Nigerian Newsprint Manu-facturing Company Limited that was in liquidation.
The petitioner stated that offer letter provided for a duly executed board resolution accepting the offer, duly executed documents to perfect tripartite legal mortgage on the property known as All Seasons Plaza on Leteef Jakande Road, Agindingbi, Ikeja and all assets and debenture of Negris Hold-ings Limited.
It averred that despite the signing of the offer letter and disbursement of the facility, the respondent has willfully refused to execute the legal mortgage and debenture itemised in the agreement.
It, therefore, urged the court to in the interest of justice grants its prayer so that the depositors’ funds do not go down the drain.
At yesterday’s proceedings, counsel to Negris, Mr. Ade Badejo (SAN), urged the court to set aside the order and dismiss the suit in its entirety. He also urged the court to stay execution on the orders.
He predicated its requests on the fact that the bank made some false representations and suppressed material facts at the point of obtaining the orders.
Badejo also argued that substantive petition did not disclose any ground under the recognised heads for winding up a company under the provisions of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, Cap C20 Laws of the Federation, 2004.
He drew the attention of the court to some authorities, saying that winding up is rarely used because of the consequences both on staff and company.
But Ogunba urged the court to refuse and disregard the submissions and the application of the respondent and hear the case on its merit. He added that the argument of the respondent was a gimmick to stifle the case and prolong the repayment of depositors’ funds granted it as facility.
Ogunba disclosed that before the petition was filed, all entreaties to the respondent to pay up fell on deaf ears.