Lawyers are at it again. This time, it is how to solve the puzzle of a lifespan of an ex parte order of a Federal High Court, Lagos. While one party to the case believes strongly that such injunction automatically elapses after 14 days, the other says, the only legal option granted by superior authorities, is to set it aside by a court of competent jurisdiction. While this is playing out, anindigenous company, AKS Steel Nigeria Limited which obtained the order appointing a receiver/manager to manage its affairs, is now bearing the brunt of these different interpretations. Those who are opposed to the appointment of the receiver/manger are not letting go their desire to retain power and control over the company. This situation has created a lull, thereby resulting in low productivity of workers and loss of revenue.In this interview with IBE UWALEKE, the receiver manager, Olusegun Bamidele Ajayi, a senior lawyer, explains the hurdles the firm has been wading through since December 20, 2011 he assumed office and how he intends to surmount them. Excerpts:YOUR appointment as a receiver/manager through an ex-parte order of a court has been greeted with opposition and crisis of great magnitude. Was this order properly obtained and to what effect, especially as those opposed to you, say the order has elapsed after 14 days'I was appointed receiver/manager by the court on December 15, 2011 and I took over the companyon December 20, 2011. They are just being mischievous. Their lawyers should have properly advised them that an ex-parte order remains valid and binding till it is set aside by a competent court. This position of the law has been categorically stated in so many cases decided by the Supreme Court of Nigeria such as F.A.T.B. Ltd. Vs Ezegbu (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 264) 132, Ezeokafor Vs Ezeilo (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 619) 513 and Ekanem Otu V. ACB Bank Plc (2008) 3 N.W.L.R. (Part 1073) 179 where the same court held per Ibrahim Tanko Mohammed JSC at 205 that: 'Although that order was granted ex-parte, there is no evidence in this record that it was set aside by the same court or any other court. That order remained valid and subsisting till when it is set aside. That is the position of the law'.Did you invite the police and OPC members to the place at the time you were taking over the company as alleged by the leader of the company's workers'It is a blatant lie. We informed the policeof the court orders before going to the factory and they gave us five policemen to accompany us to the factory. The former management had employed the services of the OPC. Some of their members were present there and were trying to resist us when police came. Later on, the leader of the OPC came to me and claimed that the company was still owing them for the services rendered to the previous managementtill December 20, 2011, when I took over. I had to pay him to buy peace and I have the payment voucher signed by their leader as a proof of receipt.Is it true that you sacked 500 workers of the company'I did not sack any worker. We have three categories of workers in the company. The first category was the expatriate workers, numbering 36; the second category was regular Nigerian workers, numbering 101 and the thirdcategory was the contract workers, numbering 450 workers. The only category of workers thatwas problematic was the 101 regular Nigerian workers. When I took over the company as receiver/manager on December 20, 2011, these workers insisted that I must pay them December salary, which they had not been paid till then, before they would work with me.I had to make loan arrangement to pay them because WEMA Bank, which was the major banker where Alhaji Olapade Mohammed, one of the defendants in the Chief Anthony Obinwa's suit, was the former chairman of WEMA Bank. He influenced the bank not to let me operate the account and up till date, Wema Bank has refused to give me the statement of accounts of the company even to the extent of disobeying the court order compelling them to give me the statement of accounts. I paid the full month salaries on December 22, 2011.After collecting their salaries, these workers failed to report for duty by the January 3, 2012, when they were asked to report for duty. The company's union leader, Mr. Andrew Ebere, instigated the workers not to resume duty as he told them that the previous management removed by the court was coming back. I invited the National Leaders of National Union of Steel And Engineering Workers of Nigeria (SEWUN) to intervene and help ensure the workers resume work. A meeting was held on January 7, 2012, between the company's union leaders, led by Mr. Ebere, the National Union leaders and myself. A written agreement was signed after the meeting that the workers would resume work within seven days to allow them come back from the holidays and failure to resume within the seven days, would mean that the absentee workers were no longer interested in working for the company and have abandoned their jobs. I am giving you a copy of the agreement and the phone numbers of the union leaders,which can be verified from them. Instead of seven days, I extended the period by additional five days to coverthe nationwide strike to enable workers resume work but they did not. Despite the additional days granted the workers to cover the national strike period and despite our various notices, the workers refused to come to work till January 20, 2012, when the company's management under me posted the notice that the workers were deemed to have abandoned duty in line with the agreement signed by the parties. The company thereafter engaged the services of other people and started minor operations on January 21, 2012.So you see that we did not sack these workers but they only wanted to hold us to ransom and even disobeyed their national union leaders who were very disappointed with the old workersof the company and approved our action of engaging new workers. It was even at the meeting that we found out that a sum of N5 million had been given to Mr. Ebere by the former management to frustrate the receivership.During the meeting, when national union leaders confronted him, he admitted that he was given money for some debt the company owed the workers. The union leaders asked him whether he informed the receiver/ manager and he replied in the negative. He was also confronted with his allegation that the receiver/manager did not pay workers December salaries. He also admitted that they have been fully paid for the salaries of December 2011 without any deductions whatsoever includingIOU taken by workers against their salaries. It means that the workers had been overpaid by an amount of 2 weeks' salaries.Are you owing them any entitlements, because they have not been paid their gratuities'When I resumed at the company, I went through a lot of records of the company and did not find anything where gratuities are to be paid. Their salaries were prepared by the former personnel manager, Mr. Adesimi Ajayi, and erstwhile personnel officer, Mr. Sheriff. I asked them to tell me all that the workers needed to be paid. What they gave me was paid fully to the extent that after, I found that we actually overpaid them in December 2011, as they did not tell me about the salary advances and loans collected by the workers. In fact, those workers are now owing the company.Why do you think these former workers developed this sudden attitude'This is simple. The chairman and directors of the company, Alhaji Olapade Mohammed, Alhaji Sani Aliyu Mohammed, Sanjay Sharma with other Indian directors at large, are facing 34-count charge filed by EFCC IN Charge No. FHC/IKJ/CR/CR/10/2011 filed at the Federal High Court, Ikeja Division, for stealing and money laundering of over 1.2 billion, impersonation, forgeries of documents filed in Corporate Affairs Commission, Abuja. So, they are trying to frustrate the receivership so that they would have unfettered access to funds. They have tried so many things, such as writing to various institutions that I am no longer the receiver/manager because ex-parte order has expired after 14 days whereas ex-parte order granted stated specifically that the order was granted pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice, which they have made all efforts to ensure that it is not heard so as to make the claim of ex-parte order expiring within 14 days despite clear decided cases of the Supreme Court of Nigeria to the contrary.They have been dishing out money to the former workers to frustrate the receivership and they have been telling lies in the newspapers against my person. They have also been claimingthat their lawyer is still the lawyer of the company at their behest meanwhile this is contemptuous of the court as the order appointing me provides in paragraph 7 of the court order that they are restrained from interfering in the affairs of the company to enable me to work as the receiver/manager.The former management's lawyer has continued to claim that he is representing the company, AKS Steel Nigeria Limited, despite the fact that I had written to him debriefing him as the receiver/manager in charge of the company and by virtue of the powers conferred on me by Section 393and the 11th schedule of the Companies and Allied Matters Act Laws of the Federation 2004 and despite the fact that I had engaged another lawyer to represent the company. My decision to change the lawyer for the company is in keeping with the decision of the Kaduna Division of the Court of Appeal in the case of Alhaji Tijani Dagazau V. Bokir International Co. Ltd. (2011) 14 N.W.L.R. (Part 1267) 261 at 325 where the court held: 'Within the period of receivership, the receiver/manager is the one in charge of the affairs of the company.He even has the power to appoint a solicitor or accountant or other professionally qualified persons to assist him in the performance of his functions'. During receivership, the board of directors of a company and its powers are suspended and replaced by the de facto sole administrator, that is, the receiver/manager through the instrument of the appointment with respect to the assets of the company in receivership. The powers of the board automatically vest in the de facto sole administrator, who determines the continuity of the employment of the secretary and indeed, of all other employees. He performs all the most important functions bestowed on him under the Eleventh Schedule of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 1990'.It is clear from the above recent judicial decision that I am the one appointed to be in charge of the management and control of the company until another court order removes me or terminates my receivership/management of the company or the ex-parte order appointing me is dischargedWhat will happen now'We are already educating various stakeholders on the true situation of things and we will soon be able to start full production as we are trying to put in place all the things to start production. The purpose of this interview is to disabuse the mind of the public from the falsehood and lies being spread as a result of the change of management of the company.
Click here to read full news..
