Shortly after the management and workers of Arik Air limited face off, a federal governemnt parastatal setup against bad debts, the Assets Management Corporation (AMCON), on February 8, 2017 announced that it had taken over Arik Air Limited.
The corporation said it took over Arik Air Limited to save the airline from collapse and in the best interest of the general public, workers, creditors and other interest groups in the aviation sector.
In the process that a legal practitioner, Oluseye Opasanya (SAN) of the law firm of Olaniwun Ajayi LP, who was appointed as the receiver manager of Arik Air Limited following its takeover by AMCON went to the Federal High Court in Lagos against that unenthics practics of the governement agency
After hearing both preliminary objections on Friday, Justice Idris adjourned till May 15, 2017 on two preliminary objections stemming from the takeover of Arik Air Limited.
By an ex parte application on February 8, AMCON secured an injunction restraining Arik Air Limited’s “shareholders, directors, creditors, managers, officers, employees, servants, consultants, agents, representatives, privies” from interfering Opasanya’s power to manage Arik.
But four persons, who were aggrieved by the court order – Sir Joseph Arumemi-Ikhide, Chris Ndule, Dr. Michael Arumemi-Ikhide and Engineer Sangowawa Olubiyi – filed a preliminary objection through their lawyer, Mr. Babajide Koku (SAN).
They accused the lawyer representing AMCON and Opasanya, Prof. Kayinsola Ajayi (SAN), of engaging in professional misconduct and urged the court to void all the processes so far filed by Ajayi on behalf of AMCON and Opasanya.
The grounds of their objection was that Ajayi and Opasanya are both lawyers practising in the law firm of Olaniwun Ajayi LP.
Koku argued that by virtue of Rule 17 of Professional Conduct of Legal Practitioners 2007, neither Ajayi nor any other lawyer from the law firm of Olaniwun Ajayi LP could appear in a case where Opasanya is a plaintiff.
Opposing the preliminary objection, however, Ajayi argued that there was a distinction between Opasanya and the law firm of Olaniwun Ajayi LP where Opasanya works and there was no law stopping anyone from the law firm from representing Opasanya.
Besides, Ajayi also filed a preliminary objection challenging the locus standi of Koku’s clients to file the preliminary objection.
He argued that they were not parties in the suit in question which AMCON and Opasanya filed against Arik and the Inspector-General of Police.
He described them as interlopers who should not be heard and urged Justice Mohammed Idris who is hearing the case to dismiss the preliminary objection by Koku’s clients.