Fuel scarcity occasioned by the closure of the tank farm of Capital oil and Gas Industries, which accounts for 35 per cent of local petroleum consumption, may persist till next week, considering that the Federal High Court on Friday deferred ruling on the company application to reopen the tank farm to 11th December 2012.
On 13th November, the court had granted the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) an interim order of forfeiture of all the assets of capital Oil and Gas over a huge debt of the company to First City Monument Bank.
Through his counsel, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), embattled owner of the company, Ifenyi Ubah on Friday prayed the court to vacate the order and allow the company sell the product and offset part of its debt.
Olanipekun also submitted that the petroleum products in the tank farm are perishable by evaporation and that the quantity is enough to sustain the country for some days. He argued for the vacation of the interim order of forfeiture granted under the AMCON Act because it contradicts the provision of the 1999 Constitution.
Opposing the application, however, counsel to the plaintiff, Kemi Balogun (SAN) urged the court to refuse the plea to vacate the order, saying the AMCON Act was meant to protect the economy from meltdown. He also said that Capital Oil and Gas has only 21m litres of oil, which would only serve Lagos for a day.
Presiding judge, Justice Abdul Kafarati, while reserving his ruling, directed AMCON’s counsel to formally apply that the product in the tank farm should be sold and the proceeds deposited with court registrar, as the court will not entertain an oral application on the subject.
Last week, the court had varied an earlier order it made granting the AMCON immediate possession of properties belonging to the company and its managing director, Ifeanyi Ubah.
The company, represented at hearing by Mr. Lawal Rabana (SAN), had asked to be allowed access to 50 per cent of the credit balance in some of its accounts with the United Bank of Africa (UBA), to enable payment of salaries of its workers and attend to other pressing needs.
But the plaintiff’s counsel, Kemi Balogun (SAN), opposed the application, saying the account balance presented to the court was incorrect. He added that the defendants had met with his client and given an undertaking not to challenge the order made last Tuesday.
Varying the order, Justice Abdul Kafarati said the defendants could withdraw 25 per cent of the amount disclosed by UBA in its affidavit.
In the application, Rabana is seeking an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the plaintiff from disposing, selling or leasing properties belonging to his client pending the determination of the suit.
According to an affidavit in support of the motion, both parties had agreed on modalities for repaying the loans and rescheduled payment to be spread over a period of eight years from 2013. Rabana said the order made for immediate possession was in breach of the agreement; and unless it is vacated, the company will be unable to pay salaries of its workers.
