Court urged to wind up Med View Airlines

Jan 20, 2020

A Petroleum distribution company Asharami Synergy Plc has filed a winding up petition before Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke of the Federal High Court in Lagos Nigeria against Med-View Airline Plc, over its inability of to pay a debt of N43.5 million.

In particulars of indebtedness accompanying the petition, Asharami Synergy Plc company alleged that, it supplied Med-View Airline Aviation fuel between January 2018 till August 2018, totalling N43.5 million.

It said the debt became due for payment by 31 August 2018 following which the petitioner made various demands for payment, but the airline defaulted.

The parties held a meeting where it was agreed that by 28 February 2019 the Airline will pay the entire sum.

After the meeting Jenifer Ugorji the team lead- Retail Sales and marketing of the petitioner, sent an e-mail to the Airline’s Chief Executive Officer/Managing Director Alhaji Muneer Bankole on the resolution of the meeting, but he did not respond to the e-mail.

Jenifer Ugorji then sent another e-mail to Serifat Olajide, an accountant in the employment of the airline. She responded that the managing Director was out of the country and that the airline would pay on his return.

Thereafter Med View paid a paltry sum of N500,000.

Following the inability of the Airline to pay the debt, the petitioner briefed the law firm of Le Pestro Solicitors to demand for the payment of the debt due.

Despite the various express demands by e-mail and letters made by the petitioner the Airline still failed, refused and neglected to liquidate its outstanding indebtedness to the petitioner till date.

The petitioner said because the airline has demonstrated insolvency by being unable to pay its debt, it thus requested the court to wind it up.

However, in a counter affidavit by Serifat Olajide, the accountant of Med View, she denied all the depositions of the petitioner.

She averred that the Airline knew a company called SO Aviation Limited as supplier of Aviation fuel and the company subsequently changed to the petitioner.

The transaction between the petitioner and the respondent started as far back as December, 2015.and prior to August 2018.

It was a smooth and mutually beneficial relationship between the parties as payment were made regularly and supplies were based on mutual understanding.

  1. Opinions and Analysis

Calender

« February 2020 »
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29