A limited liability company, Omritas Energy limited has filed
preliminary objection in addition to counter affidavit against the
winding up petition filed against it by a private company AYM Shafa
Limited. In a winding up petition, filed before a Federal high court in
Lagos south west Nigeria, by barrister Sir Chris Ekemezie ,the
Petitioner alleged that Omritas Energy limited, at various times was
paid the total sum of N150 million to supply Dual Purpose Kerosene, but
the company’s supply was fall short of N57,690,000.
preliminary objection in addition to counter affidavit against the
winding up petition filed against it by a private company AYM Shafa
Limited. In a winding up petition, filed before a Federal high court in
Lagos south west Nigeria, by barrister Sir Chris Ekemezie ,the
Petitioner alleged that Omritas Energy limited, at various times was
paid the total sum of N150 million to supply Dual Purpose Kerosene, but
the company’s supply was fall short of N57,690,000.
Upon various demands to pay its indebtedness, the company has made
various undertakings to pay yet in each time it failed, therefore the
petitioner urged the court to wind up the Omritas company. However, in a counter affidavit sworn to by the managing
Director of Omritas Energy Limited, Mrs Oluremi Ebun Philips, and filed
before the court by a lagos lawyer Barrister Akin Olatunji, she averred
that her company Omritas Energy limited is not in way indebted to the
petitioner AYM Shafa Limited Company in the sum of N57,690,000.rather
her company received the sum of N150 million from the petitioner to
supply 1million liters of dual Petrol or Kerosene, her company supplied
337,000 litres before dock workers went on strike,this led to scarcity
of Petroleum products,thereafter the petitioner urged the defendant to
convert the order to Automotive Gas Oil at the rate of N160.
The defendant averred that in order to meet the demand of the
Petitioner,it made payment in advance to suppliers and over N60million
of the defendant ‘s money for outstanding on AGO purchased by the
defendant for delivery to the petitioner, but the petitioner has refused
to receive the products on the ground that they are no longer ready to
buy at the agreed price per litre based on an unfounded allegation that
the price of AGO has come down.
Petitioner,it made payment in advance to suppliers and over N60million
of the defendant ‘s money for outstanding on AGO purchased by the
defendant for delivery to the petitioner, but the petitioner has refused
to receive the products on the ground that they are no longer ready to
buy at the agreed price per litre based on an unfounded allegation that
the price of AGO has come down.
In the face of this criss the defendant lost over 20 million
litres , unable to do the off -loading and had to transfer the product
to other suppliers with storage facilities to prevent further loss. It was at this stage the defendant was ready to terminate the
transaction with the Petitioner, whereby parties agreed to monetize
liters outstanding in favour of the Petitioner and that came to N57,690,000. It was agreed that this sum be paid in four instalments.
litres , unable to do the off -loading and had to transfer the product
to other suppliers with storage facilities to prevent further loss. It was at this stage the defendant was ready to terminate the
transaction with the Petitioner, whereby parties agreed to monetize
liters outstanding in favour of the Petitioner and that came to N57,690,000. It was agreed that this sum be paid in four instalments.
The dispute between the Petitioner and the defendant is narrowed
down to, at what price per litre was agreed upon and the new price the
petition is ready to accept supply,therefore the defendant vehemently
denied owing the petitioner the sum of N57,690,000.or any sum
whatsoever,.However the defendant is still liable to supply to the
petitioner 360,563 litres of AGO according to the undertaking dated 29th
of March, 2017.
down to, at what price per litre was agreed upon and the new price the
petition is ready to accept supply,therefore the defendant vehemently
denied owing the petitioner the sum of N57,690,000.or any sum
whatsoever,.However the defendant is still liable to supply to the
petitioner 360,563 litres of AGO according to the undertaking dated 29th
of March, 2017.
Consequently, it is not true that the defendant is insolvent, as
the defendant maintains more than 20 staff and crew on board and all
this are regular expenses carried out by the defendant, Mrs Philips averred further that the outstanding 360,563.litres of
AGO is very insignificant proportion compared with 2million liters the
defendant ‘s company has supplied the petitioner within the six months
when this transaction started.
the defendant maintains more than 20 staff and crew on board and all
this are regular expenses carried out by the defendant, Mrs Philips averred further that the outstanding 360,563.litres of
AGO is very insignificant proportion compared with 2million liters the
defendant ‘s company has supplied the petitioner within the six months
when this transaction started.
The defendant has more than enough resources to meet the
petitioner ‘s supply given a reasonable period of notice and agreement
as to terms. Consequently in the interest of Justice the defendant is urging the court to refuse the petitioner’s application. Meanwhile, the presiding judge Olayinka Faji has adjourned till 17th of December, 2018, for hearing.
petitioner ‘s supply given a reasonable period of notice and agreement
as to terms. Consequently in the interest of Justice the defendant is urging the court to refuse the petitioner’s application. Meanwhile, the presiding judge Olayinka Faji has adjourned till 17th of December, 2018, for hearing.
