BUA Group has described the publication of Dangote Group wherein it
stated that BUA misinterpreted the fact about a pending court case as
untrue and laden with fraught misrepresentations.
A statement by
BUA Group explained that Dangote, in its hurry to twist facts, failed to
justify the alleged misinterpretation in its publication but stylishly
stated that it has appealed the judgement whilst accepting the recent
court order, which granted BUA the right to peaceful possession and
operations of three of its mining sites in Obu, Okpella in Edo State.
“In
the said publication by Dangote Group, it was alleged that the initial
publication of the BUA Group was riddled with misrepresentations and
deliberate distortions of facts. We however note that the Dangote Group
failed to identify any specific fact, which was distorted.
"On
the contrary, the Dangote Group reiterated the fact that the judgment of
the Court indeed restrained DIL and the other Respondents, as contended
by BUA, albeit stating that the judgment of the Court constitutes
complete aberrations and contains manifests contradictions; and it has
exercised its legal right to appeal the decision of the Court. Whilst we
consider this attempt to disparage the Court on the pages of print
media as an affront, we shall not be joining issues with the Dangote
Group, as we are of the view that the Court can protect itself and DIL
reserves the right to appeal the decision of the Court."
"The
Dangote Group also questioned the right of BUA to institute the BUA
Fundamental Right Suit on the basis that it was a clear abuse of court
process as there are two other pending suits – the BUA Suit and Suit No.
FHC/B/CS/74/2016: Dangote Industries Limited & Anor. v. BUA
International Limited & Ors (“Dangote Suit”). This is
notwithstanding that the Dangote Group itself ironically commenced the
Dangote Suit during the pendency of the BUA Suit. Moreover, it is trite
law that any fundamental right suit is an independent claim, which does
not impede a pending dispute. In this instance, the suit was deemed
necessary in view of Dangote Groups use of the Nigeria Police Force to
disrupt the possessory right of BUA Group and to safeguard the lives of
BUA Group’s employees. Indeed, Court confirmed this in the BUA
Fundamental Rights Suit where it was stated: “that the 1st and 2nd
Respondents (Police) allowed themselves to be used by the 3rd and 4th
Respondents (DIL and Dangote Cement)”
"It is imperative to note
that the Dangote Group’s use of the Nigeria Police Force to disrupt
BUA’s operations was done brazenly after DIL had applied to Court for a
restraining order against BUA in Suit No. FHC/B/CS/74/2016, which was
granted ex parte, but set aside by the Court upon a robust challenge by
BUA. Interestingly, the Dangote Group did not deny resorting to
self-help in its publication. It is our contention that no one should be
above the law, no matter how highly placed, powerful or influential as
the rule of law is the pillar and foundation of any democracy."
BUA
further corrected Dangote on it claim that BUA was granted its mining
lease from the Governor of Edo State restating that the authority to
grant a mining license is within the sole jurisdiction of the Ministry
of Mines and Steel Development through the Nigeria Mining Cadastre
Office, which granted the BUA licenses. BUA also dismissed Dangote’s
claim to BUA’s mining sites in Edo as absurd and frivolous as Dangote’s
mining license was granted under Kogi State while BUA licenses and
mining sites respectively cover and are located in Obu, Okpella in Edo
State.
With respect to the Dangote Group’s interpretation of the
consequence of its Appeal of the decision of the Court, it is trite law
that an Appeal does not amount to a stay of execution, and the Dangote
Group is only being mischievous by suggesting that BUA is refrained from
taking benefit of the judgment, which was in BUA’s favor. As held by
the Supreme Court in the case of Tai Ajomale v. Yuduat and Anor (1991)
All N.L.R. 197:
“The successful litigant is prima facie entitled
to the fruits of the judgment in his favour, it is expressly provided in
Section 24 of the Supreme Court Act, 1960, that an appeal does not
operate as a stay of execution.”
“The Courts have also reiterated the
position of law in the case of Enabulele v. Agbonlahor (1994) 5 NWLR
(PT. 342) 112 at P125, where it was held that:
“It is trite law
that under Section 18 of the Court of Appeal Act, 1976, the filing of a
Notice of Appeal does not operate as a stay of execution since the Court
will not normally deprive a successful party of the fruits of his
successful litigation”
BUA Group will not join issues with
Dangote as the intention of its publication was to inform its
shareholders and other stakeholders of the judgment of the Federal High
Court which granted BUA’s and not commence a media trial.
According
to the statement titled: RE: BUA OBU MINES, OKPELLA EDO STATE, it read:
“We read with dismay the publication by the Dangote Group which
purports to “set the records straight” with regards to the earlier
publication of the BUA group on the recent judgment of the Federal High
Court in Suit No. FHC/B/CS/101/2017: BUA v. IGP & Ors. (“BUA
Fundamental Right Suit”), which restrains Dangote Industries Limited
(“DIL”) and other Respondents in the suit from interfering in BUA
Group’s mining sites in Obu, Okpella, Edo State.
“In the said
publication by Dangote Group, it was alleged that the initial
publication of the BUA Group was riddled with misrepresentations and
deliberate distortions of facts. We however note that the Dangote Group
failed to identify any specific fact, which was distorted. On the
contrary, the Dangote Group reiterated the fact that the judgment of the
Court indeed restrained DIL and the other Respondents, as contended by
BUA, albeit stating that the judgment of the Court constitutes complete
aberrations and contains manifests contradictions; and it has exercised
its legal right to appeal the decision of the Court. Whilst we consider
this attempt to disparage the Court on the pages of print media as an
affront, we shall not be joining issues with the Dangote Group, as we
are of the view that the Court can protect itself and DIL reserves the
right to appeal the decision of the Court.
“Paradoxically, the
Dangote Group’s publication was fraught with untrue statements, which it
touted as the facts of the matter in an attempt to misinform the
general public. Accordingly, we seek to clarify the fallacies as
follows:
Title to Mining Sites
“The Dangote Group
alleged that BUA claims to have been granted its mining licenses from
the Governor of Edo State. In this regard, it is imperative to note that
BUA has never contended that the Governor of Edo State granted its
licenses, as the authority to grant a mining license is within the sole
jurisdiction of the Ministry of Mines and Steel Development through the
Nigeria Mining Cadastre Office, which granted the BUA licenses. Further,
both the Hon. Minister of Mines and Steel Development and the Nigeria
Mining Cadastre Office are defendants in Suit No. FHC/B/CS/7/2016: BUA
International Limited & Anor. v. Hon. Minister of Mines and Steel
Development (“BUA Suit”), wherein BUA asserts its legal and beneficial
ownership of the mining sites.
“Further, the Dangote Group explicitly
asserted that BUA does not have any right to the mining sites on the
basis of the response of the Director-General of the Mining Cadastre
Office to BUA’s application to renew its licenses. Needless to say, the
Director-General’s ministry and parastatal are also Defendants in the
BUA Suit pending in Court and the reaction is therefore not surprising.
“We
wish to state clearly that the mining license granted to Dangote Group
explicitly states that the location is in Kogi State, Nigeria, while the
BUA licenses and mining sites respectively cover and are located in
Obu, Okpella, Edo State, Nigeria. The Dangote Group’s attempt to lay
claim to mining sites not within a geographical area covered by its
license is therefore ludicrous.
“The general public is therefore
advised that Dangote Group’s claims are nothing but an attempt to
unilaterally determine the outcome of the very matter the Court has been
approached to determine in Suit No. FHC/B/CS/7/2016 - BUA Suit, which
is still pending”.
Legal Precedence
The Dangote
Group also questioned the right of BUA to institute the BUA Fundamental
Right Suit on the basis that it was a clear abuse of court process as
there are two other pending suits – the BUA Suit and Suit No.
FHC/B/CS/74/2016: Dangote Industries Limited & Anor. v. BUA
International Limited & Ors (“Dangote Suit”). This is
notwithstanding that the Dangote Group itself ironically commenced the
Dangote Suit during the pendency of the BUA Suit. Moreover, it is trite
law that any fundamental right suit is an independent claim, which does
not impede a pending dispute.
In this instance, the suit was
deemed necessary in view of Dangote Groups use of the Nigeria Police
Force to disrupt the possessory right of BUA Group and to safeguard the
lives of BUA Group’s employees. Indeed, Court confirmed this in the BUA
Fundamental Rights Suit where it was stated: “that the 1st and 2nd
Respondents (Police) allowed themselves to be used by the 3rd and 4th
Respondents (DIL and Dangote Cement)”
It is imperative to note that
the Dangote Group’s use of the Nigeria Police Force to disrupt BUA’s
operations was done brazenly after DIL had applied to Court for a
restraining order against BUA in Suit No. FHC/B/CS/74/2016, which was
granted ex parte, but set aside by the Court upon a robust challenge by
BUA. Interestingly, the Dangote Group did not deny resorting to
self-help in its publication.
It is our contention that no one
should be above the law, no matter how highly placed, powerful or
influential as the rule of law is the pillar and foundation of any
democracy. “With respect to the Dangote Group’s interpretation of the
consequence of its Appeal of the decision of the Court, it is trite law
that an Appeal does not amount to a stay of execution, and the Dangote
Group is only being mischievous by suggesting that BUA is refrained from
taking benefit of the judgment, which was in its favor. As held by the
Supreme Court in the case of Tai Ajomale v. Yuduat and Anor (1991) All
N.L.R. 197:
“The successful litigant is prima facie entitled to
the fruits of the judgment in his favour, it is expressly provided in
Section 24 of the Supreme Court Act, 1960, that an appeal does not
operate as a stay of execution.”
“The Courts have also reiterated the
position of law in the case of Enabulele v. Agbonlahor (1994) 5 NWLR
(PT. 342) 112 at P125, where it was held that:
“It is trite law
that under Section 18 of the Court of Appeal Act, 1976, the filing of a
Notice of Appeal does not operate as a stay of execution since the Court
will not normally deprive a successful party of the fruits of his
successful litigation”
“We shall refrain from further joining
issues on this particular matter as the intention of our initial
publication was to inform our shareholders and other stakeholders of the
judgment of the Federal High Court and not to commence a media trial
with the Dangote Group”.
1 Comments
This is to inform the general public that individuals can order Dan-gote3xCement directly from the factory at a promo price of 1300 Naira per bag and RICE for 10,000 naira per bag. Transportation and offloading is 300 Naira,minimum for purchase is from 100 bags and above. kindly contact Dangote Group Marketing Manager Alhaji Shehu Abubakar ON O 8 1 3 3 5 4 9 O 5 5 for booking and delivery. Note-Delivery takes two days and it’s nationwide.When Strength matters,Choose 3X.Also order your foreign used heavy equipment(DREDGER,EXCAVATOR,HEAVY DUTY TRUCK AND CONCRETE MIXER ) at the best prices and with a high performance quality.PLEASE TELL OTHERS ABOUT THIS WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY.
ReplyDelete