The Federal High Court Chief Judge and the National Judicial Council (NJC) have been asked to look into circumstances surrounding the arbitrary transfer of their cases and the abuse of ex-parte orders to ground their investments in Nigeria. In a petition submitted to the office of the Chief Judge in Abuja on Tuesday November 12, 2024, Edmark Group protested against the ex-parte orders granted by Honourable Justice C. Aneke in 2022 which have paralyzed their businesses and operations in Nigeria. A copy of the petition written through the solicitors of Edmark Group, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa SAN & Co and which was acknowledged in the office of the Chief Judge in Abuja was cited by our correspondent.

Recall that a minority shareholder, Mr. Anthony Etim Maurice, claiming just 5% unpaid shares of the company, had approached the Federal High Court, Lagos in May 2022 and through his lawyers he secured blanket ex-parte orders to appoint a receiver/manager to take over a company in which he plays no significant role. Lamenting this development, the Edmark Group stated in the petition as follows:

“Suddenly in May 2022, Mr. Etim Maurice Anthony invaded the headquarters of Edmark Direct Marketing with Mr. Seyi Akinwunmi and officers of the Federal High Court, they chased out members of staff and padlocked all the offices of the company. It turned out that Mr. Etim Maurice Anthony had secured a blanket ex-parte order from Honourable Justice C. Aneke, to attach all the assets of the company and to appoint a receiver/manager for the company, which company was not a debtor to anybody. Mr. Anthony did all this on the strength of his claim of 5% unpaid share capital in Edmark Direct Marketing. Thus, since May 2022, the company has been totally paralyzed and all its business operations and activities grounded. All expatriate members of staff have been chased out of Nigeria. Based on the petition of Edmark Group, the case was eventually transferred from Honourable Justice C. Aneke to Honourable Justice D. Osiagor. The said Ex-parte orders are attached as Exhibit A Series.”

The petition stated further that the case has been heard and determined at the instance of the petitioner, Mr. Anthony, when he moved the court (Osiagor J) to appoint an auditor to conduct a forensic audit to determine the value of his 5% unpaid shares in order to be paid and to exit the company. In a twist of events, Mr. Anthony alleged bias against the same judge that granted his request and thereafter filed an application for the judge to recuse himself from the case, which application was heard and dismissed. Mr. Anthony was alleged to have subsequently by-passed the court process to apply to the administrative judge to transfer the case on the alleged indisposition of the presiding judge.

“Suddenly, the Petitioner wrote a letter to the Administrative Judge of the Lagos Division of the Court, requesting for a transfer of the case on the ground of indisposition of the presiding judge. First, the presiding judge had earlier on delivered a considered ruling dismissing the Petitioner’s request for recusal and transfer of the case. Second, there is an appeal pending against the said ruling. Third, the Petition had been heard and determined substantively, only awaiting the report of the auditor. Fourth, the court had given notice that the presiding judge was set to resume sitting on all his cases. Thus, there was no basis for the request for transfer of the case to another court.”

Edmark Group narrated the unfortunate development that occurred in one of the cases which came up for hearing on November 11, 2024 before Honourable Justice D. Osiagor, when the Petitioner again alleged bias against the judge leading to his recusal from the case.

‘On November 11, 2024 when the case came up for hearing, the Petitioner moved his application for recusal, which the presiding judge granted in a bench ruling, despite the copious counter-affidavit filed by the Respondents, in opposition. Upon delivering his bench ruling, the presiding judge lifted up the case file and stated as follows:

“I swear now before my God my creator, that if I have had any communications or dealings with the Respondents in this case, let God judge me and my family forever.

But if it is true that the Petitioner has made overtures to me, directly and indirectly, all of which I declined, may God judge the Petitioner and his lawyers and frustrate all their efforts against me.”

Edmark Group then requested the Chief Judge to conduct an inquiry into the cases and secure justice for the companies.

The Edmark Group humbly requests the office of the Honourable Chief Judge to set up an inquiry into the circumstances leading to:

1.The Ex-parte Orders granted by Honourable Justice C. Aneke which all worked to paralyze the business activities and operations of the Edmark Group whilst they subsisted;

2.To look into the mode of execution and enforcement of the said Ex-parte orders whether they are in conformity with the extant procedure of the Federal High Court;

3.To investigate the circumstances leading to the transfer of the case of Anthony v. Edmark Direct by the Administrative Judge, in the face of a subsisting ruling of the court dismissing the application for transfer, an appeal filed against it and the fact that the presiding judge had resumed sitting at the time of transfer of the case;

4.To determine whether the transfer of the case of Anthony v. Edmark Direct is in conformity with extant policy of the National Judicial Council on transfer of cases already concluded to 80% stage of hearing. In FRN v Nnamdi Kanu, the Honourable Chief Judge of the Federal High Court overruled the decision of the presiding judge recusing herself from hearing the case and consequently, the case file was returned to her to conclude the hearing;

5.Whether the request for transfer and the transfer of the case of Anthony v Edmark Direct do not amount to an abuse of court process on the part of the Petitioner and his counsel, to seek an administrative transfer of a case in which a similar application had been argued and dismissed and an appeal lodged against the said dismissal and on the part of the Administrative Judge, whether it is not an abuse of judicial discretion, in overruling a subsisting ruling of the presiding judge for which an appeal had already been lodged.

6.If the above determinations proved that the said transfer of the case of Anthony v. Edmark Direct be a wrongful exercise of judicial discretion, to return the case to the court that heard and determined it, to conclude the case.

B. RECUSAL THE CASE OF ANTHONY V EDMARK CITY

The Edmark Group humbly requests the office of the Honourable Chief Judge to set up an inquiry into the circumstances leading to:

1.The recusal of the presiding judge in the case of Anthony v Edmark City.

2.The declaration of the presiding judge in open court that he was a victim of blackmail by forces which tried in vain to influence him in the case.

3.If the determination establishes impropriety of any sort, to return the case file to the presiding judge to conclude the hearing.”

The petition was copied to the administrative judge of the Federal High Court in Lagos, Honourable Justice D. Osiagor, the Petitioner through his solicitors and the National Judicial Council.