The Federal High Court in Lagos has dismissed a suit filed by FBN Quest Trustees Limited and a court-appointed receiver, describing the action as “vexatious,” “frivolous,” and a “gross abuse of court process.”
In his judgment, Justice Akintayo Aluko not only struck out the suit but also ordered the plaintiffs and their counsel to pay millions of naira in damages and legal costs.
Most notably, the court directed senior lawyer Norrison Quakers, SAN, to personally pay ₦2 million to the defendants for instituting what the court described as a frivolous action that negatively affected the reputation of the Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (RCICAL).
The judge also awarded ₦15 million as reimbursement for legal expenses incurred by the defendants and an additional ₦5 million against the 1st plaintiff.
The suit, marked FHC/L/CS/1651/2024, was instituted by FBN Quest Trustees Limited and Mr. Henry Enemodia, a court-appointed receiver/manager over several companies, including Melrose Books & Publishing Ltd, Bromley Packaging Nigeria Ltd, Bromley Technology Ltd, and Aristocrat Specialties Nigeria Ltd.
They had sued the Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration and its Director, Dr. McHarry Mordi, challenging the appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from agreements executed between the parties.
At the heart of the dispute was the appointment of Prof. Ike Ehiribe as sole arbitrator by the arbitration centre, pursuant to arbitration clauses contained in offer letters dated August 13, 2020, and November 11, 2020.
The plaintiffs argued that the arbitral proceedings ought not to continue because appeals and applications for stay of execution relating to earlier Federal High Court decisions were already pending before the Court of Appeal.
However, Justice Aluko rejected the arguments and held that the suit was fundamentally defective.
In the detailed ruling delivered on May 8, 2026, the judge held that the plaintiffs had improperly initiated a fresh action while related appeals and stay applications were already pending before the appellate court.
According to the court, the new suit was filed principally to frustrate compliance with earlier court orders directing the parties to proceed to arbitration.
The judge held that the plaintiffs were effectively inviting the Federal High Court to review and scrutinise earlier decisions already on appeal, an exercise he said the court lacked jurisdiction to undertake.
He noted that the plaintiffs had already filed appeals and motions for stay of execution against the decisions delivered in Suit Nos. FHC/AB/CS/69/2023 and FHC/L/CS/579/2024, both of which ordered the parties to submit their disputes to arbitration in line with their contractual agreements.
