Breach Of Agreement: Court Stays Proceedings, Orders Parties To Proceed On Arbitration

Justice Obiora Egwuatu of a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has ordered a stay of proceedings in the suit filed against Raymond David Wodi and four others over breach of agreement.

Plaintiffs in the suit, Ibrahim Bagudu and Sherrif Babagana M. Lawan, dragged Raymond Wodi, Sonia Finecountry Wodi, 3R Company Nigeria Limited, 3R Revenue Assurance Solutions Limited and Corporate Affairs Commission,  who are 1st to 5th respondents in the matter before the court.

The respondents filed an objection, praying the court to dismiss the suit.

They sought an order striking out the suit in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction, for being incompetent and filed without any reasonable cause of action.

They also prayed for an order striking out the names of the 1st, 2nd and 4th respondents/applicants from the suit for lack of cause of action, privity of contract and misjoinder of parties.

The plaintiffs in their response to the objection prayed the court to dismiss it on the ground that it was an attempt to waste the time of the court.

But Justice Egwuatu, after hearing parties in the matter granted the request of the plaintiff and ordered a stay of proceedings.

He held, “I have compassionately examined the said statement of facts. It can be deduced that the grievance of the petitioners is the alleged unlawful manipulation of the share structures of the 3rd and 4th respondent without the consent and knowledge of the petitioners who are directors and shareholders in the 3rd respondent.

The allegations were made against the 1st and 2nd respondents.

“Specifically, paragraphs 15, 20 (a) and (b), 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 made strong and weighty allegations against the 1st and 2nd Respondents in the manipulation and alterations in the share structures of the 3rd and 4th respondents.

The allegations if proved will entitle the Petitioners to the reliefs sought. I agree with the Petitioners that whether or not the allegations are true cannot be determined at this stage of the proceedings as doing so will be tantamount to delving into the merit or substance of the case at a preliminary stage, which the courts have been enjoined to reframe from.