Billionaire businessman, Femi Otedola, has moved do douse fears of direct running of First Bank of Nigeria (FBN), amid the controversy of his owning the largest single shares of the nation’s premier banking concern.

Apparently in an attempt to lay to rest speculations that are rife in the public over the issue, Otedola, told reporters on Wednesday at the ExecuJet Private terminal in Lagos that his recent acquisition of shares in FBN Holdings was purely an investment decision.

“Being the single largest shareholder doesn’t mean I must necessarily hold a position in the bank. I believe in allowing competent people to run institutions in a professional manner and to the benefit of all the stakeholders.

“That is an institution with a world-class corporate governance structure and a strong performing management that creates value and guarantees returns in form of dividends and capital appreciation.”

Stressing that the major focus of any good investor is to see opportunities where others did not, he a argued that he was convinced that FBN Holdings had a bright future, is strong, solid, and would remain a dominant player in the Nigerian financial services sector.

Hear him: “I am simply an investor who saw an opportunity in the financial institution and decided to take advantage of it through the investment I have made. My interest, contrary to speculation, is not to become chairman of the bank or its Holdco. Moreover, I am in semi-retirement.”

Posted by  Editor |  16 December 2021, 11:51am

Premium Bread Makers Association of Nigeria (PBAN), stormed the office of the Mudashiru Obasa, Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly , Alausa, armed with a protest letter over the rising price of baking materials.

They claimed that high costs of ingredients and multiple taxes had made their business too expensive to run, leading to the astronomical increase in the price of bread and other confectionery, to almost double.

Lamenting the ugly situation that had hit their business with low sales and almost zero profit, they also bemoaned the increases in the price of flour and other ingredients, apart from hikes in the prices of other items such as electricity and cooking gas.

At Obasa’s office on Friday, PBAN, told the Speaker that one million jobs of their members may be lost unless the “unbearable intimidation and harassment by state agencies’’ is stopped.

President Emmanuel Onuorah and General Secretary Emmanuel Onyoh, who led the delegation PBAN to hand a letter to Obasa, pleaded with him to help stop multiple levies from agencies and harassment by the police, while listing other challenges threatening the survival of the bread industry in the state.

These in include: Multiple monitoring of bakeries by ministries, agencies, and parastatals

• Harassment of delivery van drivers by Vehicle Inspection Officers (VIOs), and Lagos State Traffic Management Agency (LASTMA) officials
• State agencies repeat motoring done by the officials of the National Agency for Food & Drug Administration (NAFDAC), Standard Organisation of Nigeria (SON), and Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity, et cetera.

PBAN named the state agencies to include:

• Lagos State Ministry of Environment
• Lagos State Safety Commission
• Lagos State Ministry of Transport (State Carriage)
• Lagos State Environmental Protection Agency (LASEPA)
• Lagos State Traffic Management Authority (LASTMA)
• Lagos State Fire Service
• Lagos State Inland Revenue Service (LIRS)
• Lagos State Emergency Management Agency (LASEMA)
• Councils and Local Council Development Associations (LCDAs)
• Lagos State Signage and Advertising Agency (LASAA)

Levies include

• Daily ticket toll charged by councils and LCDAs
• Mid-year rates demanded by councils and LCDAs
• Police harassment and extortion of money from bread delivery drivers

Impact on business

PBAN said these hassles have reduced operational capacity to below 50 per cent, led to low staff retention, and a drop in employee tax to the government.

“The likely loss of job/business by over 500,000 bread distributors is imminent and this will further affect a lot of living conditions of their families,’’ it stressed.

It urged Obasa “to use your good office to save our businesses from collapse and prevent over one million people in Lagos State under our employment (inclusive of bread distributors) from becoming jobless and being pushed back into already saturated unemployment market.’’

PBAN appealed to the government to, among others,

• Use one consolidated agency to oversee bread business instead of multiple agencies
• Tell the police to stop the harassment, intimidation and seizure of the vehicles of bread distributors
• Make Lagos State Employment Trust Fund (LSETF) World Bank grant and loans available to bread bakers as employers of labour.

Posted by  Editor |  17 December 2021, 03:04pm

Posted by  Editor |  17 January 2022, 04:18pm

The Supreme Court will now hear the appeal of Guaranty Trust Bank (GTB) against N2.4billion judgment given in favour of Innoson Vehicles Manufacturing, an automobile company, which it initially dismissed on technicalities, saying it was “misled” to have reached its earlier conclusion.

A federal high court in Ibadan, Oyo state, had ordered GTB by way of Garnishee order absolute — one of the options open to a judgment creditor to enforce a judgment made in its favour, to pay N2.4 billion to Innoson with a 22% interest, per annum, on the judgment sum until the final liquidation.

Dissatisfied, the bank had appealed the high court’s verdict up to the apex court, which on February 27, 2019, dismissed the bank’s appeal and affirmed the judgment of the federal high court.

But the bank secured a major relief, when the apex court, retrieved its earlier judgement, following an application it filed seeking the re-listing of the appeal on the grounds that it was wrongly dismissed.

Delivering judgment on Friday, a five-member panel of justices led by Olukayode Ariwoola, held unanimously that the Supreme Court erred when it erroneously dismissed GTB’s appeal marked: SC/694/2014.

In the lead judgment written by Tijani Abubakar but read Abdu Aboki, the court held that it was misled by its registry, which failed to promptly bring to the notice of the panel that sat on the case on February 27, 2019, that GTB had already filed its appellant’s brief of argument.

The supreme court stated that if the panel hearing the case on February 27, 2019, had been informed of the availability of the appellant’s brief of argument, the judgement would not have been issued.

Relying on Order 8 Rules 16 of the Supreme Court Rules, the apex court held that it has the power to set aside its decision in certain circumstances, like any other court.

According to the panel, some of the circumstances to do so includes when the parties obtained judgment by fraud, default or deceit; where such a decision is a nullity or where it is obvious that the court was misled into giving a decision.

“I am convinced that at the material time that the appellant’s appeal was inadvertently dismissed by this court, there was in place, a valid and subsisting brief of argument filed by the applicant,” the court held.

“It will be unjust to visit the sin of the court’s Registry on an innocent, vigilant, proactive and diligent litigant.

“It is obvious from the material before us, that there were errors committed by the Registry of this court, having failed to bring to the notice of the panel of Justices that sat in chambers on the 27th February 2019 that the appellant had indeed filed its brief of argument.

“This is a case deserving of positive consideration by this court. Having gone through all the materials in this application, therefore, I am satisfied that the appellant/applicant’s brief of argument was filed before the order of this court made on the 27th of February 2019 dismissing the applicant’s appeal.

“The order dismissing the appeal was therefore made in error. It ought not to have been made if all materials were disclosed. The application is, therefore, meritorious and hereby succeeds.”

The court then set aside its previous ruling and ordered that the appeal marked: SC/694/2014 “be relisted to constitute an integral part of the business of this court until its hearing and determination on the merit.”