N212M Debt: Diamond Bank Drags Lagos APC Factional Chairman, Fouad Oki, to Court

Another battle front has opened for the factional chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Lagos, Mr Fouad Oki, who drew a battleline with the camp of the national leader of the party, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu at the recently held state congress.

The battle, this time, has shifted from the political turf to the Federal High Court in Lagos, where Diamond Bank Plc has dragged Oki in a bid to recover a debt of N212, 051, 898. 22.

Oki was the Director General of the campaign organization of Lagos State governor, Mr Akinwunmi Ambode.

Joined as first defendant in the suit marked FHC/L/CS/134/2016, is Oki’s firm, Eko Akete Engineering and Construction Company.

At the resumed hearing of the matter on Thursday, Diamond Bank’s lawyer, Ifeoma O. (Mrs), was asked by Justice (Professor) Chuka Obiozor, why the matter filed since 2016, has not been heard. She told the court that the defendants were evading service.

Upon the revelation made by the bank’s lawyer, the Court ordered her to move her application and call her witness in the matter.

Following the directive of the presiding judge, the lawyer called her witness, one Mrs. Stella Ekhator, who is the Ajah branch manager of the bank.

But, the matter could not proceed further, due to time factor.

It was then adjourned till June 25 for further hearing.

Diamond Bank in its statement of claims filed before the court by its lawyer, Lotanna Okoli, stated that its management had on May 1, 2012 approved a request from Oki’s firm for a term loan facility in the sum of N75 million, which the firm used in purchasing of heavy duty equipment and to fund some project works for the construction of Suleimon Soderu by-pass in Ikorodu local government area of Lagos state.

The bank also stated that on February 1, 2013, Oki’s firm approached it for another loan facilities, which were availed to the firm in the sum of N36 million and N55, 530, 000 as a term loan and lease finance facility.

Oki, who is the managing director of the firm and one Bayo Akeju, who is also a director in the firm, allegedly signed the acceptance column of the offer letter.

Diamond Bank also stated that Oki’s firm utilized and drew down on all the facilities availed to it, and as at November 1, 2014, due to the transactions on the said amount, and the failure of Oki’s firm to fund its account, the firm’s account was in debt to the tune of N151, 028, 057. 04.

The bank further stated that as a result of debt balance in the firm’s account, several meeting and discussions were held between it and the firm with the aim of getting the firm to liquidate its indebtedness, but the firm again on December 18, 2014, requested for an extension of the loan facilities totaling N96,124, 118. 90, to enable the construction firm meet its already increasing obligations and liquidate its indebtedness to the bank.

The bank claimed that the request was granted.

The bank stated that despite having granted the construction firm an extension of the outstanding loan facilities, the firm has failed, refused and neglected to settle its outstanding.

Following the above scenario, Diamond bank stated that it wrote demand letters through its lawyers on February 27, June 1, and October 7, 2015, to both Oki and his firm, demanding repayment of the outstanding debt, and still both defendants failed to liquidate the debt.

The bank stated that as at March 31, 2016, Oki’s firm’s outstanding debt on the loan facilities plus accrued interest had amounted to N212, 051, 898. 22.

Consequently, Diamond Bank Plc, sought an order of the Court compelling the defendants jointly or severally, to pay the sum of N212, 051, 898. 22, representing principal and accrued interest as at the date, arising from various loan facilities granted to the company.

The bank also sought an order of the Court for payment of compound interest at 22.19 percent per annum on the said N212, 051, 898. 22, until judgment, and thereafter at the rate of 15 percent per annum, until final liquidation of the judgment sum.

Diamond Bank is also seeking an order permitting it to continue either by itself or through its solicitors, to retain ownership and control of all the fixed and floating assets of the two defendants, until the final liquidation of this requested sum with interest, or until the charged property and assets are sold.