The Bi-Courtney Group has faulted its listing on the Debtors’ List of the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON).
Tolu Oshobi, partner at Babalakin & Co Legal Practitioners, debunked the claim, describing it as “an act of extreme bad faith”.
Oshobi said the federal government was owing Bi-Courtney to the tune of N132 billion, and demanded that the alleged debt be settled before any agency could make such claim.
“It is no longer news that the federal high court in 2012, found that the federal government of Nigeria, the principal of AMCON, is indebted to our clients in the sum of N132 billion and directed the federal government to set off from the above-mentioned sum any claims (if any) agreed with our clients to be due to any agency of the federal government of Nigeria, including AMCON,” Oshobi said in a statement.
“The order of the Federal High Court, in suit no FHC/ABJ/CS/50/2009 – Bi-Courtney Limited vs. Attorney General of the Federation remains subsisting.
“The order applies to all the companies that entered into settlement discussions with the AMCON as the “BCRR Group”, namely: Bi-Courtney Limited, Chartered Investment Limited, Resort International Limited and Roy gate Properties Limited.
“These companies collectively entered into settlement discussions with AMCON as the ‘BCRR Group’ with a view to amicably resolving these disputes.
“It has always been the position of Bi-Courtney and its sisters companies that any claims that AMCON has against any of them should be set off against the judgment of N132,540,580,304.00 awarded in favour of Bi-Courtney and which far exceeds the aggregate sum allegedly owed to AMCON by these companies (which is seriously disputed especially with reference to Resort).”
“AMCON’s publication of the name of Resort International Limited was therefore an act of extreme bad faith and a misrepresentation and concealment of the true facts.
“AMCON is also aware that its claim against Resort International Limited is substantially bereft of any legal or contractual basis. However the issues have been submitted to courts and tribunals of competent jurisdiction where they are better dealt with than on the pages of newspapers. We are considering whether or not the publication, being false, constitutes a libellous publication and if it does, we will take appropriate legal action.”