A metering company, Ziklagsis Network Ltd, has dragged the federal government, the Federal Ministry of Power, and four others before the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court, over the recovery of N39.1 billion meant for metering.

The firm is specifically seeking the sum of N1.1 billion in damages and the cost of instituting the court action against the defendants which also includes; the Minister of Power, the Debt Management Office, Providus Bank Ltd, and De-Haryor Global Services Ltd for their alleged interference with the metering project, which it was granted the loan to execute and repay in seven years.

Ziklagsis Network Ltd, in the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/576/2024, is claiming that based on articles 3, 4,5,6,10, and 18(i),(ii),(iii),24 and 29(ii) of the Judgement Compromise Agreement it entered with the Federal Ministry of Power on August 28, 2017, the ministry and the federal government had no powers to tamper, confiscate, seize, withhold, divert, convert and appropriate the sum of N39,171,985,233.95 granted it for the supply or provision of electric meters in Nigeria.

The company, which pointed to the Covid-19 pandemic as the cause of its non-execution of the contract, further submits that there are calculated attempts by the federal government and the Ministry of Power to frustrate and sabotage its efforts in the performance of the terms of the Revalidated Tripartite Agreement as modified by the Addendum No. 2, ?which attempts are done in utter bad faith with the ultimate end of truncating and or divesting the plaintiff of the benefit of the project.?

Ziklagsis through its counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN further submits that the defendants frustrated efforts to execute the project by refusing to release the funds despite it being awarded the contract and receiving the presidential approval on the compliance on its part.

In their joint response to the suit, the federal government and the Minister of Power argue that they acted in accordance with the agreement

However, in a counter affidavit, Providus Bank, through its lawyer, Adesegun Ajibola (SAN), described parts of Ziklagsis? affidavit in support of the originating summons to be false and full of half-truths to mislead the court, adding that the company being only a fixed deposit account customer seeking higher interest on the deposit than offered by Polaris Bank, Providus is not aware of the terms of the agreement it reached with the federal government.

Similarly, in a counter affidavit, an electricity installation company, De-Haryor Global Services Ltd informed the court that the suit was ?brought in bad faith, and the court should not lend support for the plaintiff (Ziklagsis)?s action but should rather condemn it.?

De-Haryor?s lawyer, Marcus Abu, submitted that the contract was awarded to Ziklagsis to cushion the effects of the hardship faced by Nigerians in the estimated energy billing through the deployment of free pre-paid meters but the company denied Nigerians the benefit of the project.

The firm added that Ziklagsis has not placed anything on the ground in the court to demonstrate what it has done pursuant to its Exhibit ZNL 5 Agreement while De-Haryor, on the other hand, has substantially executed the contract it has with it.

?By the provision of Article 5(d) of the JCA, the plaintiff (Ziklagsis) was given two years of moratorium within which to supply or provide electric meters in Nigeria according to the JCA,? De-Haryor?s lawyer submitted.

?Meanwhile, the plaintiff (Ziklagsis) did not invest any funds in the performance of same but the 1st and 3rd defendants (federal government and Minister of Power) had already given the sum of over N39 billion to the plaintiff for the execution of the metering project. Rather than perform its obligation under the contract, the plaintiff deposited the said sum in a fixed deposit.?

He continued: ?My lord, the mere fact that the 1st and 3rd defendants (federal government and Minister of Power) had already paid the contract sum to the plaintiff (Ziklagsis) shows that the defendants have performed their obligations under the said contract.

?On the other hand, the plaintiff depositing the contract sum in a fixed deposit account is a clear indication that it had no intention to utilise the contract sum for the project intended by the JCA.

?Rather than declaring estoppel against the defendants as prayed in relief 1, the court should declare that the contract is already discharged by the plaintiff?s breach.?

While questioning why the plaintiff?s metering service agreement it executed with the Yola Disco and received the letter of drawdown from the 2nd defendant (Ministry of Power) without supplying a single meter towards the project, he asked ?Is the world still being ravaged with Covid-19 pandemic till the time of filing this suit? It is common knowledge that Covid-19 did not last the whole of the year 2020.?

De-Haryor joined the suit as an interested party after delivering on phase one of the barracks metering project for the Nigerian Army under the Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) metering project.

The army had introduced it to the Ziklagsis to receive a loan of N7.5bn of the N39bn granted to the company.

Justice James Omotosho fixed February 4 for the hearing of the suit. (THISDAY)

Update news