newsheadlines247

The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos on Tuesday adjourned till June 15 a suit seeking the winding up of an oil firm, Eroton Exploration & Production Company Limited for its alleged inability to pay Brightwaters Energy Limited a judgment debt of $20 million.

Justice Akintayo Aluko fixed the date following an application by the petitioner, Brightwaters Energy Limited, through its counsel Mr. Olu Aju .

Mr. Aju told the judge that the motion for the winding up application was ripe for hearing.

Advertisement

But the respondent’s counsel Ugochukwu Okocha sought an adjournment on the ground that his principal, Mr Wale Akoni (SAN), was keen to argue the case personally.

Granting Okocha’s application, Justice Aluko adjourned for hearing of the motion to advertise the winding up of Eroton Exploration & Production Company Ltd

The petitioner, in its motion on notice of March 21, 2023 in suit FHC/L/C8/491/2022, is seeking a single relief.

“An order granting leave to the Petitioner, BRIGHTWATERS ENERGY LIMITED, to advertise the winding up Petition herein in the Federal Goverment Official Gazette, one national daily newspaper and other newspaper circulating in Lagos State, where the registered office and principal place of business of the respondent is situated or in such other newspaper as the court may direct.”

The grounds upon which Brightwaters made the application are that “the respondent is insolvent, has insufficient assets to meet its liabilities and has failed to liquidate indebtedness to the petitioner.

“The 21 days 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.

“It is in the public interest that the advertisement of the winding up petition be made.”

But the respondent opposed the winding up petition via a preliminary objection dated May 3.

It prayed for “an order dismissing/striking out the instant petition for lack of jurisdiction.”