Appeal Court upholds sack of firm’s directors, sets aside ₦3m fine

<p>The Court of Appeal in Abuja has upheld the removal of Dr. Bunu Alibe and Mr. Ayo Olojede as directors of an indigenous oil company, Green Energy International Limited.</p>, <p>In a judgment on Monday, a three-member panel of the appellate court was unanimous in setting aside an earlier judgment delivered on September 23, 2022 by Justice Bolaji Olajuwon of the Federal High Court, Abuja, which had among others, reversed their removal.</p>, <p>The Court of Appeal faulted Justice Olajuwon’s decision that sufficient notice was not accorded Alibe and Olojede before the holding of the November 12, 2020 yearly General Meeting (AGM) of the Green Energy Oil firm where the decision to remove them was taken, among other resolutions.</p>, <p>The judgment was on the appeal marked: CA/A/CV/1248/2022 filed by Green Energy and its Chairman, Prof. Anthony Adegbulugbe against the September 23, 2022 decision by Justice Olajuwon.</p>, <p>In the lead judgment written by Justice Jamilu Tukur, but read by Justice Danlami Senchi, the Court held that the removal of Alibe and Olojede was in compliance with relevant laws, particularly the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA).</p>, <p>It further held that from the evidence before the trial court, Green Energy Company complied with the necessary requirements for the issuance of the notice for AGM, noting that the notice in the instant case, was issued and received on October 22, 2020, which constitutes 21 clear days notice for the meeting held on November 12, 2020.</p>, <p>The court faulted the trial judge for voiding the AGM and nullifying all the decisions and resolutions of the meeting, including Alibe and Olojede’s removal.</p>, <p>While holding that Prof. Adegbulugbe was not a necessity party in the case, the court set aside the ₦3million damages awarded against Green Energy in the trial court’s judgment.</p>, <p>The Court said the necessary party before the trial court was the 1st appellant (Green Energy), because the respondents’ claims were against the 1st appellant.</p>, <p>“I