The Benin Electricity Distribution Company (BEDC) has reacted to the alleged opinion of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) that the ex parte orders of the Federal High Court issued on suit No.FHC/ABJ/ CS/1113/2022 – Vigeo Power Limited v. Fidelity Bank PLC & 7 Ors on July a had expired after 14 days. An online medium reported on August 23 that: “The AttorneyGeneralof theFederation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN), believes that the refusal of the sacked Managing Director of the BEDC to vacate office is acting beyond her legal power or authority.”

It said: “Malami cited the recent restraining order paraded by the ousted BEDC boss, whom she reportedly obtained from an Abuja High Court as lawless, ultra vires, and of no effect as the 14 days granted by the Federal High Court had slumped to vacate her from the office. “In his opinion on the matter titled: Legal opinion on the possession and management of BEDC Electricity Plc., dated August 18, 2022, with reference number LE/14/1.7/95, the Attorney General cited Order 26 Rule 10(1-3) of the Federal High Court(CivilProcedure) Rules 2019 which states in part to buttress his advice.”

According to him: “An application to vary or discharge an order made ex parte may be made by the party or person affected within 14 days after service and shall not last for more than 14 days after the application has been argued unless the court otherwise directs” and “where a motion to vary or discharge an ex-parte order is not taken within 14 days of its being filed, the ex-parte order shall lapse unless the court otherwise directs in the interest of justice.” Malami, therefore, noted that the interim order being relied upon by the MD was granted on July 8, while an application to set it aside was filed on July 22. But counsel for the BEDC, Mr. Kunle Adegoke (SAN), said: “Our attention has been drawn to the opinion published on social media on the 23rd day of August, 2022 which purported to have emanated from the office of theAGFproclaimingthatthe ex parte orders of the Federal High Court issued on suit No on the 8th day of July 2022 had expired after 14 days.” He added: “First, we refuse to believe that the Attorney General would publicly comment on a matter that is sub judice and sit in judgment over an order given by a court of competent jurisdiction. In the unlikely event that the opinion indeed emanated from his office as reported, then we would describe it as unfortunate, in bad faith and an invitation to anarchy. “An order of court does not expire until the court pronounces. Were the opposite to be the case, as seemingly proclaimed by the AGF, society would be a boiling broth of self-help as every party to a suit would declare any order it finds unfavourable to have expired. “The law is that an order of court does not expire until the court pronounces so.

We refer to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Deux Projects Limited v. Access Bank PLC delivered on the 14th day of December 2020 – CA/LAG/1342/2019 – where the court corrected the impression and held that an ex parte order would not lapse after 14 days until a court so pronounces.”FHC/ABJ/CS/1113/2022 – Vigeo Power Limited v. Fidelity Bank PLC & 7 Ors. (New Telegraph)

Update news