A fresh round of legal battle is brewing between Zenith Bank and Owigs and Obigs Nigeria Limited over what the company terms institutional sabotage.
In a petition before the UK Parliament and the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Owigs and Obigs, is seeking justice for breach of contract and a perceived miscarriage of commercial justice as a result of a Supreme Court ruling.
The company had signed an agreement with Zenith Bank to finance a Letter of Credit in 2018, but the bank failed to issue the LOC after the contract had been signed.
According to the company, it led to several years of legal battle before it ended at the Supreme Court.
However, the matter took a twist when the Apex Court absolved the bank of any wrongdoing.
Owigs and Obigs is alleging that the bank colluded with the Apex Court to subvert a $64 million contract guaranteed by international trade law.
The company insists that Zenith Bank violated its obligations, noting that the Supreme Court judgment absolved the bank of wrongdoing and reconstructed the contract through what it described as ‘judicial reengineering.’
Owigs and Obigs has already submitted a petition to the British Parliament, just as it also filed a petition at the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague and the International Court of Arbitration in France, citing judicial corruption, economic sabotage, and gross violation of commercial treaty obligations.
Also, the company has filed a complaint with the National Judicial Council (NJC) seeking a review of the case. In the letter signed by the company’s chairman, Donatus Emeka Okorie, Owigs and Obigs, wondered “how an irrevocable Documentary Letter of Credit contract (MT 700) can function with the Seller’s bank as the issuing bank operating with three parties without a confirming bank or be issued for a contract between the Seller and non-parties with the Buyer relegated to a third-party role in the sales contract.“
“These rulings by the Supreme Court are unfathomable even to the most advanced computer science or artificial intelligence, but unfortunately, these were the rulings that were applied as a basis to form the self-destructive judgment being complained about as we now seek redress.”
The Supreme Court, in a case with Appeal No: SC/CV/709/2020, ruled in favor of Zenith Bank (the seller’s bank), which had served as the confirming bank in an irrevocable Letter of Credit (Contract No. JYOONL-001/KTTA140415) worth $64 million, with total indebtedness of $42.96 million and N3 billion in claims in the inform of damages arising from the sudden disappearance of funds belonging to the company and default financial obligations subject to the agreement between the parties.
The transaction was an international contract governed by binding international trade laws (UCP). It further stated that confirmed letters of credit are governed by globally accepted standards, such as the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 600), which obligate confirming banks to honor payment once conditions are met. Violations of such standards not only erode the rights of exporters but also compromise global trust in cross-border financial instruments.
Owigs and Obigs Chairman Donatus Emeka Okorie said that if Zenith Bank admitted during cross-examination in court that they understood the terms of the contract, why did they go ahead to breach it?
“The contract is not the normal contract; it is a contract subject to a treaty known as UCP. Those UCP rules are a modern form of trading. And the terms are coded in trade terminologies, which are interpreted by international rules for interpretation of trade terms. This very contract in issue, the rules used in interpreting it, is known as INCOTANCE 2010 revision; that is the one this contract was subject to.
“During cross-examination, our lawyers asked Zenith Bank whether they really understood the agreement before they signed, and they said they understood. They asked them further, did they read it carefully before they signed, and they said yes,” he said.
He noted that the avoidable verdict has not only imperiled the operations of the company globally, it also negatively impacts the image of the Nigerian business class in international trade.
While calling on the NJC to urgently intervene, the company said the outcome will determine whether it will approach the ECOWAS Court, UN, and other global bodies for the Respondent Bank to explain how it obtained a favorable judgment based on a non-existent contract or false premises, uses being deemed the Issuing Bank despite being the Seller’s Bank, a three-party letter of credit without a Confirming Bank, and immunity for banks to breach contracts without consequences.
“The Supreme Court’s fraudulent ruling has left the bank red-faced, unable to claim victory before the public. With the judgment’s legitimacy in tatters, the questions arise: Will the National Judicial Council allow the defaulting bank to retain this “stolen property,” or will it be retrieved and handed to the rightful owner, upholding justice and accountability? The Council’s response will determine the fate of Nigeria before the international business community.
“The Respondent Bank, as a financial institution, should have distanced itself from the judgment based on a fictitious Letter of Credit that doesn’t exist on earth. Instead, the bank’s acceptance of the judgment has sparked global concerns and suspicions of collusion between the judges and the bank. This may lead the international business community to question the credibility of both the bank and Nigeria’s judicial system in handling trade matters, potentially tarnishing the country’s image.
“Can the Court provide examples of countries where such an unconventional Letter of Credit (LC) has been used? Why did they ignore evidence and fabricate an LC in their judgment, contradicting the one presented in court?” the company added.
