Estimated reading time: 13 minute(s)
B4G Consulting Ltd has asked a Lagos State High Court to restrain Systems Applications Products (SAP) from dissipating $3,371,945.27 and N5mllion with 28 Respondents including the Central Bank of Nigeria and 21 other banks, pending determination of an alleged contract breach suit.
It is also seeking a Mareva injunction restraining the 1st-28th Respondents from releasing to SAP $3,371,945.27 and N5mllion held with the 1st – 28th Respondents.
It is further seeking to restrain the 1st-28th Respondents from releasing to SAP any funds or other instruments belonging to SAP and held with the 1st – 28th Respondents up to the value of $3,371,945.27 and N5mllion.
It is also praying for an order directing the 1st-28th Respondents to file and serve affidavits before the court within seven days of the grant of the three prayers above, disclosing all funds belonging and/or due and payable to the Defendants/Respondents and held with them, as at the date of service of this motion on each of the Respondents.
The suit, which was formerly before Justice Olukayode Ogunjobi, has now been reassigned to Justice Ezekiel Ashade and proceedings are to resume on March 26, 2021.
B4G Consulting Ltd & Anor, represented by its counsel David Ogebe, are the Claimants/Applicants in the suit marked LD/ADR/519/2016, while Systems Applications Products Nig. Ltd and Systems Applications Products (Africa Region) (Proprietary) Ltd are the Defendants/Respondents and are represented by Adedapo Tunde-Olowu SAN.
28 others are nominal respondents are National Petroleum Investment Management Services, Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), Nigerian Petroleum Development Company Ltd, Department Of Petroleum Resources (DPR), CBN, Debt Management Office (DMO).
The banks are: Access Bank, Ecobank, Citibank, Fidelity Bank Plc, First Bank, First City Monument Bank, Globus Bank, Guaranty Trust Bank, Heritage Bank, Keystone Bank, Polaris Bank, Providus Bank, StanbicIBTC Bank, Standard Chartered Bank, Sterling Bank, Sun Trust Bank, Titan Trust Bank, Union Bank, United Bank For Africa, Unity Bank, Wema Bank Plc and Zenith Bank.
Apart from the Mareva Injunction, the claimant is also seeking other reliefs in the main suit. These include:
“An order directing the Defendants to pay to the Claimants the sum of $83,169.78 being outstanding and unpaid sums, $117. 60 in respect of hoteling for 8 Consultants from January – September 2010 and $267, 792 being pay for services of consultants between July to September 2010
“An order directing the Defendants to provide full details and render accounts including all reviews and payments received from the NNPC in relation to the ERP System contract between SAP and NNPC
“An order directing the Defendants to pay the full 10 per centum face value of the ERP System contract as valued at its date of completion. less previous payments to the Claimants.
B4G Consulting averred in its July 27, 2020, amended statement of claim that sometime in 2009 the defendants engaged it to help broker, procure negotiate, secure and implement an ERP System contract (the SAP ERP contract with the NNPC.
The consideration provided in respect of the engagement was the supply or provision of services to a minimum of 10 per cent of the face value of any secured contract.
Pursuant to the claimants’ engagement, a contract with an initial value of $36.75m (subsequently revalued to $42m) was negotiated and secured between the NNPC and SAP.
The claimant commenced the supply or provision of services in line with the terms of its engagement by SAP, but before it could provide the minimum 10 per cent of the ERP contract, the Claimant’s provision of services was halted – by SAP vide letter dated 12 July 2010.
It averred that SAP without any investigation and without hearing from the Claimants issued a letter of 12 July 2010 unilaterally imposing fresh contractual terms on the parties including demanding exclusion of the physical presence of the 2nd Claimant from the project.
Despite the Claimant’s letters in response of 20 July and 12 August 2010 respectively, SAP ignored these letters.
“The Defendants did not issue payment advice to the Claimants but only made sporadic lump-sum payments to the Claimants account on 21 and 26 July, and 16 August 2010.
But opposing the claimant’s prayer in its February 22, 2021, amended statement of defence, the defendants described the claimant’s case as frivolous, an abuse of court processes that should be struck out with substantial costs against the claimants.
They averred that the claimant was “not entitled to the $83,698.78, $117,66, $3,371.945.27 claimed in this action or any other judgments. The Defendant states that it has no contractual obligation to make any disclosures to the Claimant with respect to the said contract as alleged.”
It added further: “The Defendant also states that they never agreed that the condition to be provided in part of the ERP contract with NNPC ‘is a minimum 10 per cent of the face value of any contract’ as alleged by the Claimants.”