The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has granted leave to Brightwaters Energy to advertise the winding up of Eroton Exploration & Production Company which owes it a consent judgment debt of $20 million.
Justice Akintayo Aluko, in a ruling on Wednesday, a copy of which was obtained by our correspondent on Thursday, August 8, 2024, dismissed Eroton Exploration & Production’s objection to Brightwaters Energy’s application.
The judge upheld the application of Brightwaters Energy, which was filed and argued by a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Mr. Olumide Aju.
Justice Aluko held: “Having once again perused the affidavit in support of the application and the exhibits attached and upon examination of the Consent Judgment dated 21/6/2022 and the statutory demand letter dated 6/2/2023 issued and served on the Respondent on 23/2/2023 and with the filing of the Petition on 22/3/2023, there is merit and substance in the motion for . of the petition.
“To this end, I hold that the application succeeds and declare as follows;
“(1) That the lone relief on the face of the motion for . is granted.
“(2) That the mode of . of the petition shall comply strictly with the provisions of Rule 19 and 20 and other relevant provisions of the Companies Winding Up Rules.”
Brightwaters Energy is the Petitioner/Respondent, while Eroton Exploration & Production Company is the Respondent/Objector in the suit marked FHC/L/C8/491/2022.
The petitioner sought “an order granting leave to Brightwaters Energy to advertise the winding up petition in the Federal Goverment Official Gazette, a national newspaper and other newspapers circulating in Lagos State, where the office and place of business of the respondent is situated or in such other newspaper as the court may direct.”
The grounds for the relief included that “The respondent (Eroton Exploration and Production Company) is insolvent, has insufficient assets to meet its liabilities and has failed to liquidate indebtedness to the petitioner, which arose from an admitted judgment debt which Eroton consented to through Terms of Settlement and which they have refused to pay more than one year after the judgment was entered into by court.
“The 21-day statutory demand notice within the meaning of Section 572 (1) of Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020 has since been issued to the respondent and same has elapsed.
“Notwithstanding the statutory demand notice within the meaning of Section 572 (1) of Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020, the respondent has refused, failed and/or neglected to defray the debts owed to the petitioner.”
The respondent filed a preliminary objection on May 3, seeking “an order dismissing/striking out the instant petition for lack of jurisdiction,” on the grounds, among others, that “the petitioner/respondent (the respondent”), in filing a verifying affidavit with its petition on same date, robbed this court of jurisdiction to hear the instant Petition.”
But the court agreed with Aju’s argument that the petition was in order.