A coalition of civil society organizations has called on the Supreme Court to review its judgment in a multi-million dollar contractual dispute between an indigenous company, Owigs and Obigs Nig. Ltd and Zenith Plc, with a view to reversing itself.
Anchored by Empowerment for Unemployed Youths Initiative and Independent Public Service Accountability Watch, amongst others, the Coalition, at a press conference on Wednesday – yesterday, January 15 – in Abuja, the FCT faulted the judgment of the apex court on the grounds that it was marred by “deceitful rulings and misrepresentation of facts contrary to the evidence before the court,” according to Convener Stephen Ebira, in his address.
Arguing that the said judgment, which was entered in favour of Zenith bank, amounted to a miscarriage of justice as “the wrongdoer was declared innocent and rewarded, while the victim was held liable”, the Coalition lamented that the apex court, which “should be a place of hope for the hopeless has become a place where justice is strangulated,” insisting the judgment in question ” has cast a terrible slur on the presumed integrity of the apex court.”
“The judgment in appeals no: SC.709/2020 delivered on May 24, 2024, is a broad-day robbery of justice. The Supreme Court should be a place where justice is birthed, not assassinated and buried.
“It raised a red flag for investors and tarnished the surviving fragment of the nation’s reputation before the international community, and should be quickly reviewed,” the statement read, in part.
The legal action in question involved a breach of an international commercial contract for the export of solid minerals on a 100% credit basis, with a letter of credit confirmation by the confirming bank as required by the fundamental credit term of the contract.
The main contract, JYOONL-OO1/ KTTA 140415, is a quadrilateral agreement among the buyer, seller, LC issuing bank, and LC confirming bank, comprising four interdependent and interrelated autonomous contracts.
However, the confirming bank (Zenith bank Plc) was alleged to have maliciously breached the critical fundamental credit term without any reason whatsoever, thereby, activating the contract’s default clause, triggering off specific damages without remedy amounting to millions of dollars.
It is the position of the appellant that, 1) by the said judgment the apex court created a fake irrevocable documentary letter of credit with SWIFT MT 700, without a confirming bank, contradicting the original document and making a mockery of international trade standards.
2) The false irrevocable documentary letter of credit with SWIFT MT 700 is issued for contract agents and facilitators instead of the buyer-seller contract.
3) That the judgment equally altered parties to the case by the falsified irrevocable documentary letter of credit which listed only three parties excluding the confirming bank/respondent, instead of four parties.
4) That in the judgment, the Supreme Court rewrote an international contract for the parties in favour of the breaching party by subsisting a non-party with a party, removed the liabilities of the legitimate party to a non- party contrary to the evidence on record and protocol upheld by Uniform Trade Customs and Practice which ruled and governed the contract.- A treaty to which Nigeria is a signatory.
5) The seller’s bank (Zenith bank PLC) was declared the issuing bank instead of confirming bank contrary to evidence on record and serial admissions by the bank, in order to absolve the confirming bank as the breaching party from its default liabilities.
The company said its fundamental right to generate/earn revenue and profits through legitimate business transactions as established by the laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria was maliciously breached due to the malicious violation of contract No JYOONL-OO1/KTTA 140415.
t explained that its decision to approach the apex court was not to seek special damages or rights, as misconstrued by the court, but rather to enforce the specific remedies outlined in the contract’s default and liability clause, which specifically warned against breach of contract and the consequences, including the appellant’s right to generate revenue, which the breaching bank violated under the sales contract.
The case of the appellant is that after securing an export licence to export solid minerals sometime in 2014, Zenith bank Plc agreed to offer export finance facility if it could secure an export trade contract backed by an acceptable letter of credit from a foreign entity/company.
Following discussions with the bank, the appellant engaged the services of an international agent, Eglone Group Asia Pte Limited based in Singapore to help it broker/secure foreign buyers for tin Ore, tantalite ore and columbite ore.
Eglone Group Asia Pte Limited eventually succeeded in getting two buyers for the appellant (Owigs and Obigs Nig. Ltd) in March and April 2014. The first contract that was secured is contract No. Jy-OONL-001, dated March 5, 2014, which was executed between the appellant and Guangdong Jiayuan Metals Co. Ltd of China for the supply of Tin ore; while the second contract with contract No. KTTA 140145, dated April 15, 2014, was executed between the appellant and King-Tan Tantalum Industry Ltd of China for the supply of Columbite ore and tantalite ore.
However, due to the failure of the appellant (Owigs and Obigs Nig.Ltd) to execute the contract on time, the contracts were cancelled, and penalty fees were deducted by Zenith bank from the appellant’s account.
According to the indigenous firm, the cancellation of the contracts was because Zenith bank failed, or neglected to confirm letters of credit issued by the buyer’s bank, Industrial and Commerce Bank of China (ICBC).
It was based on this that the appellant commenced legal actions against the bank, claiming monetary damages for negligence.
