Oando Plc on Monday urged the Federal High Court in Lagos to join it in the lingering face-off between the company’s suspended Group Chief Executive Officer Wale Tinubu and his deputy Mr Omamofe Boyo against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
Tinubu and Boyo are challenging SEC’s decision to remove them from office, impose a fine on Tinubu and bar them from being directors of public companies for five years.
Oando’s lawyer Yele Delano (SAN) told Justice Ayokunle Faji that his client intended to be joined in the suit.
He sought an adjournment to enable him file the necessary processes.
Besides, he also said he would be praying the court to consolidate similar cases on the SEC decision.
Tinubu and Boyo’s lawyer Tayo Oyetibo (SAN) also urged the court to join Oando in the suit.
He said his clients would be affected should the court refuse to grant Oando’s application in the event it goes an appeal.
Oyetibo urged the court to take a favourable look at the application for joinder, so that progress can be made in the suit.
But, SEC’s lawyer Chief Anthony Idigbe (SAN) said the case was set for hearing, and that he was ready to go on.
The court had on June 3 restrained the SEC from acting on its decision against the plaintiffs.
Ruling on an ex-parte application filed by Tinubu and Boyo, Justice Mojisola Olatoregun ordered parties to maintain status quo.
SEC had on May 31 announced the conclusion of an investigation of Oando and ordered Tinubu and other affected board members to resign.
On June 2, it announced it had set up an interim management team headed by Mr Mutiu Sunmonu to oversee the company’s affairs and to conduct an Extraordinary General Meeting on or before July 1 to appoint new directors to the board, who would subsequently select a management team
Tinubu and Boyo filed the suit numbered FHC/L/CS/910/19 to challenge the SEC decision.
They sought “an order of interim injunction restraining the second respondent (Sunmonu) from acting as the head of the interim management of Oando Plc pending the hearing and determination of the motion for interlocutory injunction.”
After hearing the applicants counsel, Justice Olatoregun ruled: “That an interim order of injunction is granted within the prayers sought; parties are to maintain the status quo ante pending the determination of the motion on notice.”
After taking pleas, Justice Faji adjourned until July 4 for arguments while July 22 was fixed for hearing of the substantive suit.