Akwa Ibom APC Guber Candidate’s Company In Legal Battle One Day To Election
Saidel Limited, a company owned by the governorship candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in Akwa Ibom, Akanimo Udofia, has been dragged to the Federal High court in Lagos over unpaid debt a day to March 18 governorship and state house of assembly elections.
The APC governorship candidate’s company is said to be owing Hydrodive Nigeria Ltd., a company that offers oil and gas services, multimillion naira. Hence, Hydrodive wants the court to dissolve the company.
Hydrodive told the court that Saidel Limited is owing them N200,000,000 and $243,606.50 for weeks despite receiving a statutory demand notice.
Due to Saidel Limited’s failure to pay the debt, Hydrodive Nigeria, through its legal team led by Nnamdi Oragwu of Punuka Attorneys and Solicitors, is requesting that Saidel Limited be dissolved by the relevant sections of the Companies and Allied Act.
The petitioner also asked the court to name Mr. Tochukwu Onyiuke, an insolvency practitioner, or another duly licensed member of the Business Rescue and Insolvency Practitioner Association of Nigeria, as the substantive liquidator to immediately dissolve Udofia’s company by the Companies and Allied Matters Act.
Hydrodive asserted that Saidel Limited had gotten in touch with it at some time in 2018 regarding offshore diving work for the Southern Swamp Sales Gas Evacuation Pipeline Project and that on July 17, 2018, a contract had been reached and signed.
The company also asserted that the project’s execution was completed in February 2019 and that Udofia’s company provided a project completion certificate.
Hydrodive claimed that it sent multiple reminders, follow-ups, and demands for payment in addition to informing the respondent of the significant interest that had already begun to accrue on the facilities borrowed to carry out the contract.
The respondent, on the other hand, stated that they had issues obtaining the money back.
In response to one of the demand letters, Saidel Ltd told the petitioner on April 1, 2021, that it was “optimistic about concluding the facility transaction with the bank”.
The respondent added: “Unfortunately, the final Credit Risk Committee of the Bank rejected the Respondent’s requested amount and increased the collateral to 140%.”
As of the time of filling in this report, the court was yet to rule on the case.