A stock brokerage firm, Valueline
Securities and Investment Limited, has instituted a legal action against
the founder of the Living Faith Church, popularly known as Winners’
Chapel, Bishop David Oyedepo, over alleged breach of agreement on a N9bn
worth of investment.
The firm along with its Managing
Director, Samuel Enyinnaya, are seeking an order of the court compelling
Oyedepo and others to pay them the sum of N1.86bn jointly and severally
as professional fees and damages.
Besides Oyedepo, the other defendants in
the suit filed before a Federal High Court in Lagos are Oyedepo’s wife,
Abiola; his children and blood relatives, Priscillia, Jesutobi, Makinde
and Isaac.
Others are the World Mission Agency Inc,
which is the overall ruling organ of the Winners’ Chapel; Covenant
University, Ota, Ogun State; and the Nigerian Stock Exchange.
The plaintiffs, in their statement of
claim, averred that Oyedepo and the other defendants entered an
Investment Portfolio Management Agreement with them and appointed them
as the portfolio managers to oversee and to ensure the profitability of
the said investment worth about N9bn in the Nigerian Stock Exchange.
According to the plaintiffs, it was
agreed that 2.25 per cent of the net asset value of the portfolio and an
annual incentive fee of 10 per cent of the returns on the investment
would be paid to the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs said that in order to
enhance profitability of the investment, they went ahead to obtain some
margin loans from some Nigerian banks, which turned out to be a great
boost to the investment.
They however said trouble started “when
the first defendant wanted to buy his first private jet and the World
Mission Agency Inc ordered the sale of majority of the securities in the
investment portfolio, and that despite the professional advice to the
contrary, the plaintiffs were made to sell the securities to raise the
N3bn needed for the jet, a development which brought about huge losses
to the investment.”
According to the plaintiffs, following
the said sale of securities coupled with the global economic meltdown
which caused stock market across the globe to crash at the time, the
investment recorded losses.
But the plaintiffs said, “In a bid to
avoid their financial obligations to the plaintiffs, Oyedepo and his
organisations wrote a petition to the Economic and Financial Crimes
Commission alleging fraud and embezzlement against the plaintiffs.”
They however said the EFCC found the
them innocent after six years of investigation but they alleged that
Oyedepo had gone ahead to use his “religious denominational connection”
to drag them before the NSE on the grounds that the investment portfolio
was mismanaged and that the margin loans were taken by the plaintiffs
without the consent of the first to 10th defendants.
The plaintiffs further alleged that
their trial by the NSE was conducted in a prejudicial manner, adding
that the NSE had frozen their trading accounts.
This situation, which they claimed had
put them and their business in a difficult situation, they averred was
the reason for the suit before the Federal High Court.
Among others, the plaintiffs are praying
the court to “declare that the NSE had been conducting the trial before
it in a manner prejudicial to the plaintiffs’ fundamental right to fair
hearing.”
They also want the court presided over
by Justice Mohammed Yunusa to reverse what they described as malicious
freezing of their trading accounts by the NSE.
Besides, the plaintiffs urged the court
to compel the NSE to pay them N61m for the closure of their accounts and
to make an order compelling the first to 10th defendants to pay them
N780m, being their unpaid professional fees for managing their
investment portfolio.
In addition, the plaintiffs also want
N1bn in damages jointly and severally against the defendants for the
trauma and psychological torture and loss of reputation they suffered by
the actions of the defendants as well as N25m solicitors fees and the
cost of instituting the action.
But in its preliminary objection, the
NSE urged the court to decline jurisdiction over the suit as same ought
to have been filed before the Investment and Securities Tribunal and not
at the Federal High Court.
The NSE also argued that the plaintiffs failed to file the mandatory pre-action notice before filing the suit.
Yunusa has adjourned hearing in the case to February 16, this year.
Culled from PunchNG
Culled from PunchNG
No comments:
Post a Comment