Court suspends First Bank from holding AGM

Justice Akintayo Aluko of the Federal High Court, Lagos, has restrained First Bank Nigeria (FBN) Holdings Plc from holding, conducting or hosting its 12th Annual General Meeting (AGM) scheduled for August 22, 2024, virtually or otherwise, pending the determination of a motion for interlocutory injunction filed by a shareholder, Tohir Folorunsho Ismaila.

The court gave the order on August 13, after hearing a motion ex parte filed and moved by Prof Taiwo Osipitan (SAN), with Mrs Olayemi Badewole (SAN) and Adetola Ogunlewe for Ismaila, the petitioner/applicant.

FBN Holdings is the sole respondent in the suit, marked: FHC/L/CP/1428/2024.

Justice Aluko held, “An order of interim injunction restraining the respondent/respondent by itself, its directors, secretary or agents, assigns, servants, privies or any person acting on its behalf from holding/conducting/hosting the 12th Annual General Meeting of the respondent scheduled for 22nd August, 2024, via a virtual medium or howsoever pending the hearing and determination of the petitioner’s motion on notice for interlocutory injunction is hereby granted.

“An order of interim injunction restraining the respondent, its agents, servants, privies and/or assigns from taking any steps to pass any special and/or ordinary resolutions at its Annual General Meeting slated for the 22nd of August, 2024, pending the hearing and determination of the petitioner’s motion on notice for interlocutory injunction is hereby granted.

“An order of interim injunction restraining the respondent, its directors, secretary, agents, privies or person(s) acting on its behalf from sending out any notice of general meeting of the respondent otherwise howsoever conveying any general meeting of the the respondent/respondent pending the hearing and determination of the petitioner’s motion on notice for interlocutory injunction is hereby granted.”

He adjourned the case to August 23, 2024.

According to the petitioner, the grounds for the application include that he is aggrieved about alleged “illegal and oppressive actions of the respondent, which has negatively affected his rights and interest as a shareholder of the respondent.