Alleged Debt: Swift Networks kicks, as court restrains company from accessing N7 billion in 25 banks

*The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has earlier granted Union Bank Plc an Interim Injunction preventing Swift Networks Limited by itself or through anyone from tampering with or dealing in any manner with any of its assets/properties in whatsoever form within the jurisdiction of the court in the country

Isola Moses | ConsumerConnect

The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos, Nigeria,  has granted Union Bank Plc an interim order of Mareva Injunction restraining Swift Networks Limited and its agents from dealing or accessing about N7bn in lodged in 25 banks, pending the determination of an alleged debt recovery suit.

ConsumerConnect learnt Justice Daniel Osiagor made the order July 19, 2023, after hearing counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant, Union Bank, Mr. Temilolu Adamolekun move the motion ex-parte to protect the res in the suit.

Ex-parte injunction is a court order that tells someone or a party to either do or stop doing something. It’s called “ex parte” because it’s issued without hearing from the other side.

Mr. Adamolekun had made the exparte application pursuant to Section 13 Of The Federal High Court Act, Order 26 Rule 1, 2 (1), 3, Order 26 Rules 8 (1), 9 And 10, Order 28 Rules 1 (2) AND 2(1), Order 40 Rules 1(3) & (4) Of The Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019 ,and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, report stated.

He listed Swift Networks as the Defendant while the banks were listed as the 2nd to 25th Respondents.

Besides the Plaintiff Union Bank, the other banks are Access Bank Plc, Citibank Nigeeria Limited, Ecobank Nigeria Limited, Fidelity Bank Plc, First Bank Of Nigeria Plc, First City Monument Bank Plc, Guaranty Trust Bank Plc, Globus Bank Limited, Heritage Bank Plc, Jaiz Bank Limited, Keystone Bank Limited, Lotus Bank Limited, Parallex, Polaris Bank Limited, Providus Bank Limited, Stanbic Ibtc Bank Nigeria Limited, Standard Chartered Bank Limited, Sterling Bank Plc, Suntrust Bank Nigeria Limited, Titan Trust Bank, United Bank of Nigeria, Unity Bank Plc, Wema Bank Plc and Zenith Bank Plc.

Specifically, Justice Osiagor, after reading the Affidavit in Support, the Exhibits attached and the Written Address, ordered as follows:

“That an interim order of Mareva Injunction is granted restraining the Defendant (Swift Networks), its agents, privies and/or assigns or otherwise howsoever from dealing with any of the monies standing to its credit in all of its accounts, records or howsoever held with the 2nd to 25th Respondents and also its monies standing to its credit in custody of the Plaintiff up to the tune of N7,037,410,548.23 (billion) or its equivalent in any foreign currency.

“That an Interim order of Mareva Injunction is granted restraining the 2nd to 25th Respondents and their agents or anyone whatsoever from releasing to the Defendant or any of its Affiliate, any monies, funds or any other instrument belonging to the Defendant, to the tune of N7,037,410,548.23 or its equivalent in any foreign currency that may be or found in the custody or possession of the 2nd to 25th Respondents.”

The court also granted an Interim Injunction restraining Swift Networks by itself or through anyone from tampering with or dealing in any manner with any of its assets/properties in whatsoever form within the jurisdiction of the court, “particularly but not limited to all the assets/properties within the premises of the Defendants at 31 Saka Tinubu Street, Victoria Island, Lagos State.”

The court as well directed the 2nd to 25th Respondents to “disclose on oath whatever sum of money that may be in their custody belonging to the Defendant for further direction of this Honourable Court.”

Justice Osiagor has adjourned till September 27, 2023, for hearing of the Motion on Notice.

The Plaintiff/Applicants, the grounds of this Application are as follows:

“In the course of the bank/customer relationship, the Plaintiff agreed to grant various credit facilities to the Defendant for several purposes.

“The Defendant failed to meet its repayment obligation(s) to the Plaintiff, however, by its letter of 9th November, 2017, it requested that its debt be restructured by the Plaintiff/Applicant.

“The Plaintiff granted the Defendant’s Application for a restructure and further availed it with other credit facilities. Hence the offer letter of 29th December, 2017.

“Furthermore, the Defendant failed to perform its repayment obligation arising from the offer letter of 29th December, 2017.”

The Plaintiff/Applicants averred that owing to the Defendant’s failure in meeting up with its repayment obligation, the Plaintiff further restructured the Defendant’s indebtedness to it by its offer letter of 28th September, 2020.

It noted that “Under the offer letter of 28 September, 2020, the Plaintiff availed the Defendant with a term loan facility to the tune of N7, 674,292,000.00.

“It is also the clear agreement of parties that the source of repayment shall be from the cash flow from the Defendant’s business operations and other cash flow sources available to the Defendant.

“To the Plaintiffs bewilderment, the facilities matured without the expected receivables as the Defendant failed to meet its repayment obligation to the Plaintiff under the offer letter of 28th September, 2020 which was duly accepted by the Defendant.

“It is also the clear agreement of parties that any breach of the terms of the offer letter shall constitute a default and that the entire indebtedness of the Defendant shall immediately become due and payable upon such default.”

“That these funds are certainly the res oft h i s suit and this court is urged to protect the funds in the very likely event that judgment is entered in favour of the Plaintiff and for such judgment not to be entered in vain.”

Ex-parte injunction to Union Bank baseless, says Swift Networks

Meanwhile, in response to the court ruling, Swift Network Limited, a broadband and data service provider, has described the allegations, leading the Federal High Court to grant an Ex Parte injunction to Union Bank as ‘false and baseless’.

The Board of Directors and shareholders of Swift Networks, in an official statement released July 21, 2023, said they are opposing the injunction order in court as they were not informed by Union Bank, nor did the court hear from them before the ruling.

The company stated: “The board of directors and stakeholders of Swift Network Limited have just been made aware of a Federal High Court ex parte injunction granted to union bank.

“We wish to state that the allegations that formed the basis of the Ex Parte injunction are false and baseless, as such, we are rigorously opposing the Ex Parte order in court while also trying to reach an amicable resolution with Union bank.”

The statement further said: “We are not informed by union bank, nor did the court hear our own side before the injunction was granted.

“Be that as it may, we wish to reassure our esteemed customers and stakeholders tha to our services continue to run 24/7 and we can still be reached through any of our channels listed on our website www.shifting.com, our head office at 31, Saka Tinubu street, Victoria Island, Lagos.”

Swift Networks rather assured consumers of the company’s products and services and stakeholders of 24-hour operations despite the ongoing challenges.

It as well pledged to resolve the issues involved in the court case amicably with Union Bank Plc.

Kindly Share This Story