For allegedly reneging on a partnership agreement to establish a polymer currency printing plant in Nigeria, the Reserve Bank of Australia and two other firms, Securency Private Ltd and Innovia Films Ltd, based in Australia, may pay damages up to 4billion euro to a Nigerian firm.
They are to pay 126 million euro for failing to establish a local polymer plant and an additional 1.5 billion euro for breach of contract to transfer to a Nigerian entity or establish a polymer plant in the country.
This is the value of what would have been saved if the Australian institution, through its subsidiary firms, had transferred and domesticated the technology in the country.
The Australian apex bank and the firms are to face legal charges, as an Abuja High Court ruling has granted order to their Nigerian partners, Global Secure Currency, to serve them summons.
Justice O.O. Goodluck of the High Court, Maitama, in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, in a July 2 ruling, granted Benoy Berry and Global Secure Currency Ltd an order to serve the summons on the three Australian-based firms, including Securency Private Ltd, Reserve Bank of Australia and Innovia Films Ltd, to appear in court.
At the resumed hearing, Justice Goodluck dismissed the application of the foreign firms asking it to set aside its ex-parte order of February 2, 2012 against Reserve Bank of Australia on the grounds that the order was made outside its jurisdiction.
According to the plaintiff, Dr. Benoy Berry, the Australian apex bank agreed, through its subsidiary, Securency, Australia, to set up a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) to facilitate the transfer of Polymer Technology, including a 0-pacification facility (Substrate Plant) in Nigeria; and that the marketing of the 1st defendant’s imported polymer products incidental to the general investment in the local market would be undertaken ahead of the establishment of local production.
On the strength of the agreement, Dr. Berry claimed that the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) awarded the first contract for the printing of polymer notes to the firms, but the Australian companies reneged on the terms and insisted on supplying orders and demands from polymer plants abroad rather than set up a plant in the country.
Accusing the foreign partners of unfair business ethics, which included “vicious and malicious international campaigns of misrepresentation and harassment,” Dr. Berry alleged that the firms have “subjected Nigeria to perpetual import dependency and colossal haemorrhage of foreign exchange,”
The defendants’ counsel, Mr. Dindam D.Killi, prayed for an order discharging the exparte order of the court, dated February 2, 2012, whereby leave was granted to the plaintiffs to issue and serve the summons and other originating process, on the defendant herein outside the jurisdiction of the court.
This, according to the defence counsel, is on the grounds that the plaintiff acted mala fide their ex-parte application dated November 9, 2011 failed to make a full and frank disclosure of the true contractual relationship between parties that would have aided “this court in exercising its discretion to grant leave to issue and serve the originating processes outside jurisdiction.”
Mr. Killi also argued that “this court was misled in granting the order of issuance and service on the defendant by the non-disclosure of the jurisdiction clause in the agency agreement.
Justice Goodluck held that “upon the ex-facie examination of the plaintiff’s pleadings, this court is of the view that it validly made the order for the issuance of the summons outside the jurisdiction of this court in the absence of any fact in support of the defendants’ contention,” noting also “that there is nothing in the plaintiffs’ pleadings that could have made this court to decide otherwise than to have allowed the application.”
She ruled that the order directing the plaintiffs/applicants to issue and serve the summons on the defendants “outside the jurisdiction of this court is valid and subsisting.”
Justice Goodluck upheld the arguments by Mrs. Gloria Zakka Onen, lead counsel to the plaintiffs from the firm of Messrs Adewole Adebayo Esq. and ruled that her order directing them to issue and serve the summons on the defendants outside the jurisdiction of the court was still valid and disallowed the Australian firms’ motion. She accordingly dismissed it.
