For a better experience please change your browser to CHROME, FIREFOX, OPERA or Internet Explorer.

Payporte linger in Court as Bet9ja takes position

Reaction has continued to trail the sudden disappearance of BBnaija main sponsor Payporte from the show. Could it be link to the suit case file against the brand by Vacant Board Ltd or could it be that Bet9ja throws in more than what Payporte has to offer?

Why lover of the top show could not ascertain the main reason, a Federal High Court in Lagos on Tuesday has fixed Oct,16 for further mention in a suit seeking the winding up of the sponsors of the Big Brother Naija Show, Payporte Global System Ltd.

The petition was filed by Vacant Board Ltd.

Justice Ayokunle Faji fixed the date for further mention of the suit, which was earlier fixed for mention on Tuesday.

Mr Ogedi Ogu appeared for the respondent, while Mr Yemi Fajuyitan is counsel for the petitioner.

The case will now continue on the next date.

The petitioner had filed a debt recovery suit against Payporte, before a Lagos High Court in 2015.

The Court had in its judgment delivered on May 27, 2016, awarded the sum of N23.1 million against Payporte, in favour of the petitioner.

The petitioner, however, contends that on Feb. 27, 2017, the respondent made a part payment of N5 million, leaving a balance of N17.1 million which it has failed to liquidate till date, inspite of several demand letters.

It therefore, filed a winding up petition before the Federal High Court on Dec. 29, 2017, asking it to wind up the comoany.

Meanwhile, In its notice of preliminary objection on April 25, the respondent is challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain or even hear the petition

Respondent counsel, Mr Ogedi Ogu contends that the said petition for winding up, failed to comply with the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the Companies Winding-Up Rules, 2001.

He argues that no summons was filed by the petitioner, issued or sealed in respect of the said petition, adding that the failure rendered the petition null and void.

He said that a failure of the petitioner to file and serve the summons before the commencement of the winding up suit, robes the honourable court of jurisdiction to hear the suit, as same cannot be competently activated in the petition as presently constituted.

Payporte contends that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner’s suit, as same is defective, bad in law, null and void, and an abuse of court process.

It urges that the winding up suit be dismissed, with substantial cost awarded against the petitioner.


About Author

Recent Comments