A closer study of the ongoing legal tussle between the families of the late former Managing Director of Guaranty Trust Bank, Mr. Tayo Aderinokun and four other companies with whom the late Aderinokun had acquired shares in the bank is actually not a GTBank issue but a tussle between the Aderinokun’s and the four other companies.
Suing through her mother, Miss Oluwatise Aderinokun, daughter of a former Managing Director had only joined GTBank as a relevant party in the matter that she had through her mother, Mrs. Salamotu Aderinokun instituted at a Federal High Court in Lagos alleging manipulation of her late father’s shares in GTBank by the companies.
Joined as co-defendants with GTBank in the suit are Datamax Registrar Limited; Kanali Investments Limited; Day Waterman Company Limited; Caribod Investment Limited; Mr. Babatunwa Aderinokun; and Investment One Financial Services Limited.
The young Aderinokun, in her suit, alleged that the companies breached the implied contract between them and her late father, as regards the deceased’s shares in GTBank.
Aderinokun, through her lawyer, Mr. Osaro Eghobamien (SAN), is urging the court to declare as illegal the recognition of three limited liability companies – Kanali Investments Limited, Day Waterman Company Limited and Caribod Investment Limited – as being entitled to the accruing dividends on her late father’s shares in GTBank.
She wants the court to order an enquiry into the volume of her late father’s shares in GTBank, held in the names of the three companies.
She claimed that contrary to her late father’s instruction, GTBank and Datamax Registrar Limited had paid over N1bn as dividends in the names of the companies to unauthorised persons, who were masquerading as the beneficial owners of her late father’s shares in GTBank Plc.
The payments, the young Aderinokun claimed, were made to the said unauthorised persons following various Annual General Meetings held between June 14, 2011 and March 31, 2015.
She is seeking an order of perpetual injunction restraining GTBank and the rest of the defendants from acknowledging/recognising the three companies as being the beneficial owners of the rights accruing to the shares held in their names in GTBank Plc.
At the resumed proceedings in the case on Friday, counsel for the 7th defendant, Miss M. I. Betty, contended that any objection raised by the 6th defendant could not be sustained, on the grounds that there was defect in the counter-affidavit filed by the 6th defendant.
In his submission, however, counsel for the 6th defendant, Mr. Olumide Aju, informed the court of his application, dated March 23, 2017, that urged the court to set aside the preliminary objection raised by the plaintiff, and allow him to cross-examine a witness, Mr. Mike Okon.
However, Eghobamien urged the court to hear his client’s application for interlocutory injunction because GTBank Plc was about to hold its Annual General Meeting, slated for April 7, 2017.
Egbobamien said his client’s contention was that since GTBank Plc’s AGM was to hold next week, it was imperative for the court not to hear defendants’ application on Friday but rather hear his client’s application for injunction.
After hearing the parties, Justice Idris adjourned till March 29, 2017, for the hearing of all applications of second, third, fourth and fifth defendants in the suit.
In his objection to the suit, the sixth defendant, Babatunde Aderinokun, alleged that the plaintiff’s mother, Salamotu, was never married to the late Aderinokun.
He identified Olufunlola Kafayat as the only woman legally recognised as Aderinokun’s wife, with whom the deceased was said to have contracted a marriage on January 7, 1983, in New York, United States of America.
Babatunwa also stated that the plaintiff’s claim that her late father held GTBank Plc’s shares through three companies namely: Kanali Investment Limited, Day Waterman Company Limited, and Caribod Investment Limited, was erroneous and inaccurate, as the three companies were validly constituted and registered under Nigerian law.
He said the deceased could not have given his GTBank Plc’s shares held in the name of the three companies to any beneficiaries as claimed by the plaintiff because it was the said companies and not the late Aderinokun, who owned GTB Plc’s shares.
He added that the will of the deceased never directed the executors and trustees of the deceased’s estates to take over or manage any company as erroneously claimed by the young Aderinokun.
He urged Justice Idris to dismiss the suit with substantial cost against the plaintiff.
