Court orders Seplat to hold AGM



Uba Group

The Federal High Court, Abuja has ordered Seplat Energy Plc to hold its yearly general meeting.

Justice A.R. Mohammed restrained current or former directors, shareholders and officers of the company from cancelling or postponing the meeting.

He gave the judgment in a suit marked, FHC/ABJ/PET/7/2023 and filed by Akinduor Akinnifesi and Otugade Adelaja, with Seplat Energy as respondent.

The company, in a statement by its board chairman, Basil Omiyi, said in due compliance with the ruling, the event would hold today (Wednesday)

Justice Mohammed held that the terms of an agreement reached by the parties were binding and adopted them as the judgment.

He held: “Terms of Settlement filed in the Registry of the court on April 11, 2023 and duly executed by the parties and their legal representatives, are hereby adopted as consent judgment of the court between the parties in this suit as follows:

“The respondent shall hold its 2023 AGM on the advertised date of May 10, 2023.

“The respondent shall give not less than 21 days’ notice of its 2023 AGM to the petitioners and all those entitled to receive such notice.

“The board of directors of the respondents shall ensure compliance.

“The respondents, including its present or former directors, shareholders, secretary or any other officer of the respondent howsoever called, whether acting jointly or individually, shall refrain from cancelling or postponing or taking any step towards cancelling or postponing the respondent’s 2023 AGM advertised and scheduled to hold on May 10, 2023.”

The court also held that no person or group of persons including but not limited to the present or former director(s), shareholder(s) and employee(s) of the respondent, whether acting jointly or individually, shall interfere or further interfere with the management and affairs of the respondent, except such intervention as may be determined or made during the AGM.

Each party, the court held, agrees that those terms of settlement have been duly authorised, executed and delivered by them, adding that it (terms of settlement) constitute a valid and binding obligation, enforceable in accordance with its terms.

The court added that the making of those terms of settlement does not violate any agreement, right or obligation existing prior to its execution.

The court held: “These terms of settlement shall not in any way be construed as an admission by either of the parties of any wrongful or illegal act against the other or any other person, partnership, or entity; neither shall either party construe it as an implicit or explicit recognition or admission of any current or past claims.

“These terms of settlement may be pleaded as a bar and complete defence to any actions, suits, causes, debts, claims, costs, demands, or proceedings commenced by either of the parties at any time after the date of these terms of settlement against the other party, and which are in any way contrary or inconsistent with its contents.

“These terms of settlement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument.

“These terms of settlement shall be effective immediately upon execution and shall be filed in the Registry of the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division. Each party shall bear their respective costs of this action.”