An engineering firm, Muslac Techno Company Limited, has urged an Igbosere High Court in Lagos to dismiss a suit filed against it and three others by the Nigerian Wire Industries Plc.
It said the action is “highly reprehensible, fraudulent, illegal, frivolous, vexatious and incompetent,” and should be dismissed with substantial cost in Muslac’s favour.
Nigerian Wire is urging the court presided over by Justice Deborah Oluwayemi, to restrain the defendants, including the Inspector-General of Police, from “indulging” in any act capable of restricting the movement of any of its officers.
It prayed the court to stop the defendants from further investigation, interrogation and invitation of its workers on the basis of fraud, criminal breach of trust and cheating.
The claimant is seeking a declaration that the transaction between it and Muslac Techno “is one which is not tantamount to, or suggests any criminal activity whereby the Inspector-General of Police can investigate on the basis of fraud being alleged by the second defendant.”
Muslac Techno is the second defendant in the suit, while Mr Adeniji Kabiru and Somuyiwa Atanda are the third and fourth.
But Muslac Techno, through its lawyer Mr Theophilus Akanwa, who is Principal Partner of Lagos-based law firm T.C Akanwa & Co, insists Nigerian Wire owes it.
The firm, in a counter affidavit deposed to by its Project Manager Olugbenga Oketogun, said it reached an agreement with Nigerian Wire for the purchase/sale of 5,711.25 sheets of BRC mesh.
Following the agreement’s perfection, Muslac Techno, through its First City Monument Bank (FCMB) Plc account, transferred N22,845,000 to Nigerian Wire’s First Bank of Nigeria Plc account.
The money, the firm said, was for the purchase of the BRC mesh sheet at the official rate of N4,000 each.
Muslac Techno said rather than abide by the contract, Nigerian Wire has only sold 1,992 sheets of BRC mesh to it since April 5 last year rather than the 5,711.25 sheets.
Besides, it said all of the 1,992 BRC mesh sheets supplied were transported by a truck belonging to Muslac Techno.
The firm said it never instructed Nigerian Wire to transfer to the third defendant or anybody the sum of N5,795,000 or any amount at all for the transportation of the products.
It further stated that there was no contract between it and the claimant for the supply of binding wire, none of which has been sold to it.
Muslac Techno said its efforts to persuade Nigerian Wire to supply the remaining 3,719.25 sheets of BRC mesh or refund the balance of about N14.8million proved abortive, despite writing a demand letter dated July 13, 2012.
“The claimant has instituted this suit against the second defendant rather than supply the said products or pay the balance of the money to it,” the firm said.
Following Nigerian Wire’s refusal to refund the money, Muslac Techno said it petitioned the Inspector-General of Police “to investigate the fraudulent acts of the claimant.”
“Instead of the claimant to discharge its obligations as per the contract, it has brought this action to use my Lord’s Court as a shield,” Muslac Techno said.
The firm denied being a customer of the third defendant, saying it did not pay money to Kabiru nor did they enter into any contract.
“There was no agreement between the claimant and the second defendant (Muslac Techno) that the claimant was to pay part of the money to the third defendant for transportation of the goods,” Muslac said.
The firm said the Inspector-General of Police (the first defendant) has a legal duty to investigate and question the claimant, particularly with Nigerian Wire’s alleged admission that it received Muslac Techno’s money for the supply of the products but failed to do so or make a refund of the balance.
According to Muslac Techno, Nigerian Wire’s refusal to supply the materials which were fully paid for, nor make a refund of the money, has caused it severe hardship and huge economic and financial losses since April last year.
“The claimant’s application and suit is aimed at wasting the precious time of this Honourable Court, frustrate the investigation…and to further cause hardship on the second defendant.
“It will serve the interest of justice to refuse the claimant’s suit/application with substantial cost in favour of the second defendant,” said Muslac Techno.
The third defendant, Kabiru, also urged the court to refuse the declarations sought by the claimant.
He denied parading a false identity card claming to be a Nigerian Wire employee.
According to him, although his employment with the industry was terminated, he was offered a special distributorship status via an April 23, 2004 letter, which he accepted.
Justice Oluwayemi adjourned till July 2.
