United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc has secured a Federal High Court order allowing it to serve Form 49 on directors of WEMPCO accused of allegedly disobeying a court order.
Justice Aluko granted the application for substituted service in the case between UBA and WEMPCO. The proceedings seek to determine whether the named directors disobeyed the court’s order and should face committal to prison for contempt.
The directors named as alleged contemnors are Lewis Shui Ngor Tung, Phillip Shui Chei Tung, M.A. Ola Yusuf, Tung Lawrence Blake, Aali Aare Hadji Tokunbo, Paul Shui Po Tung, Tung Robert, C.L. Ip and Taiwo Alli. 
UBA Seeks to Notify WEMPCO Directors of Contempt Proceedings
UBA’s counsel argued that serving Form 49 was necessary to give the directors an opportunity to appear before the court and explain why it should not commit them to prison for contempt.
The bank also alleged that WEMPCO directors and some staff members took unlawful steps in an attempt to disobey the court’s order.
The court’s approval of substituted service allows UBA to deliver the notice through an alternative method authorised by the court. The step advances the proceedings by seeking to bring the allegations formally to the attention of the individuals involved.
Form 49 is a court notice requiring an alleged contemnor to show cause why the court should not make an order committing them to prison for disobeying its order. The current proceedings will determine the allegations against the named directors.
READ ALSO: UBA Secures Court Order Against Vitol Over Alleged $242m Petroleum Cargo Diversion
Dispute Involves ₦61.4bn Debt
The contempt proceedings stem from an earlier order in which the Federal High Court granted a Mareva injunction and appointed a receiver/manager over some WEMPCO assets.
The order followed UBA’s claim that WEMPCO owed it ₦61,445,695,993.76, representing more than ₦61.4 billion.
A Mareva injunction is a court order designed to prevent a party from disposing of or moving assets that could be needed to satisfy a potential judgment.
UBA’s latest application seeks to address what the bank describes as alleged disobedience of the earlier court order. However, the directors have been named as alleged contemnors, and the application for substituted service does not itself establish that they are guilty of contempt.
The court will consider the relevant issues as the proceedings continue.
About The Author
