Justice Ibrahim Buba of a Federal High Court in Lagos on Wednesday barred the Financial Reporting Council of Nigeria from interfering with or impeding the normal operational activities of Stanbic IBTC Holdings Plc and its subsidiaries.
The judge also restrained the council from molesting or inviting the entire members of the board of directors of the plaintiff for interrogation.
Buba made the interlocutory injunction following argument of an application to that effect by the plaintiff’s counsel, Prof. Fidelis Oditah (SAN).
He said the plaintiff had made a case strong enough to warrant making an order for the maintenance of the status quo.
He said the order would subsist until the determination of the plaintiff’s suit against the FRCN and the National Office for Technology Acquisition and Promotion.
The suit followed the Monday suspension of the Chairman of Stanbic IBTC Holdings, Mr. Atedo Peterside, and three directors of the company, barring them from signing any financial statement over allegations of improper disclosures in the bank’s financial statement for 2013 and 2014 financial periods.
The FRCN claimed that Stanbic IBTC misrepresented its operational expenses by concealing important expenses in its financial statement.
Also suspended were the Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer, Stanbic IBTC, Mrs. Sola David-Borha, Mr. Authur Oginga and Dr. Duru Owei.
But arguing the application on Wednesday, Oditah said the FRCN had been acting in excess of its powers.
He said the suspension of the plaintiff’s N18bn right issue by the Security and Exchange Commission, at the instigation of FRCN, had resulted in the fall of Stanbic IBTC’s share price from N23 to less than N19 within a week.
The plaintiff asked the court to determine among others whether FRCN had the power to impose a fine of N1bn on it.
But counsel for the FRCN, Chief Olusina Sofola (SAN), urged the court to reject the plaintiff’s application, saying the invitation of the plaintiff by FRCN had been overtaken by events.
Sofola said, “The day of the meeting has come and gone and they (plaintiff) did not attend. The heavens did not fall. They have not said they are being invited to another meeting. The meeting did not hold, so what is this court being asked to stop?
“As we speak now, they’re carrying out their business. The letter does not run foul of the law. If they feel we acted outside our powers, they should bring an application to challenge our powers. I urge My Lord to dismiss their application.”
But in his ruling, Buba said the plaintiff had established a case strong enough to warrant ordering the parties to maintain status quo.
“The whole essence of having a court of law in any civilised society is to ensure everything is done according to law and not otherwise.
“No court is will stop a statutory authority from performing its statutory duties.
“However, the court must emphatically add that where it is alleged that a statutory authority is acting ultra vires its statutory powers, the courts have powers and are imbued with jurisdiction to enquire into whether it true of false,” Buba held.
Further proceedings were adjourned till November 6, 2015.
