Lagos — Investments and Securities Tribunal sitting in Lagos yesterday fixed May 12, 2009 to hear the application for contempt proceedings brought against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Chevron Oil Nigeria Plc and others by a shareholder of Chevron Nigeria Holdings Limited (Texaco Nigeria Plc), Mrs. Abake Cecilia Oloyede.

In her ruling, the Chairman of the tribunal, Dr. Nnenna Orji, said since the tribunal had taken note of the filing of Form 48 (notice of consequences of disobedience to order of court) which indicated that the order of the tribunal made on March 18,2009 had been breached, it was important to hear the contempt application first before every other issue.

The Tribunal chairman, who simply upheld the argument of Mr. Kehinde Aina, counsel to Oloyede, added that this was imperative in order to avoid bringing the court to ridicule, disrepute and odium.

Orji's ruling yesterday followed a similar pattern on a different matter filed by Zenon Petroleum and Gas Limited against the same respondents before a Federal High Court in Lagos where the presiding judge, Justice Lambo Akanbi, last September granted the same request. The judge had held that it was a settled case in court proceedings that when an issue as important as contempt of court is raised in any matter, such issue be treated first above every other considerations.

The judge stated that it was also to ensure that the orders of the court are properly carried out and the integrity, reputation and dignity of the court are protected.

In the case brought by Zenon, Justice Akanbi had on July 31, 2008, restrained the respondents and any of its agents from bidding, selling, alienating, transferring, disposing and or parting with the possession of the shares held by the Chevron Group in Texaco pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice in the suit.

At the tribunal yesterday, Aina argued that where there are two applications before a court bordering on jurisdiction and committal, the application for committal ought to have been taken first because there lies the dignity, integrity and reputation of the court.

His argument was consequent upon an application for contempt proceedings filed by the plaintiff against the respondents for disobeying the interim orders of the tribunal.

But counsel to the respondents led by Mr. Ricky Tarfa (SAN) said the issue was not ripe for hearing since the application before the tribunal was on the one bordering on jurisdiction.

The tribunal had on March 18, 2009, granted an interim injunction restraining the Chevron Group from divesting 60 per cent of its stake from Texaco Nigeria Plc.

It also restrained the respondents and any of their agents and representatives from bidding, financing the bid acquiring, selling, alienating, transferring, disposing and or parting with the possession of the 60 per cent equity shares held by the 3rd respondents (Chevron Nigeria Holding Limited) in the 2nd respondents Chevron Oil Nigeria Plc) pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice in the suit.

Meanwhile, Mrs. Oloyede has asked the tribunal to set aside or nullify all the steps taken by Chevron Oil and Gas Limited towards the sale, bid and transfer of her shares in one of its subsidiaries, Chevron Nigeria Holdings Limited

In an affidavit in support of the motion on notice she swore to and made available to THISDAY yesterday, the plaintiff is contending that after diligently following the order of the court by serving the respondents through substituted means, there were still some reports in a number of newspapers that the respondents have sold the disputed equity stake to MRS. Holdings Limited, Petroci Holdings and Corlay Global S.A.

She argued that it would be in the interest of justice and the preservation of the sanctity of the orders of the court if the steps so far taken by the respondents are set aside.

The shareholder is therefore asking the court for an order restoring the parties to the position the parties were as at the date of the granting of the interim order of injunction of March 18, 2009 pending the determination of the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction dated March 11, 2009.

She added that the steps taken since March 18, 2009 by the respondents and its agents shall overreach the plaintiff's motion for interlocutory injunction and the substantive remedies in the main suit if the repondents' acts are not reversed, set aside or prohibited.

Oloyede further argued that the decision of the tribunal on the pending motion and the substantive suit would be rendered nugatory as the tribunal would be foisted with the fait accompli in respect of the pending motion for interlocutory injunction and the reliefs sought in the substantive claims.

She stated that the steps so far taken by the respondents in spite of the subsisting interim order, pending motion for interlocutory injunction and the substantive matter before the court presented an appropriate reason for the invocation of the disciplinary power of the court pursuant to section 6(6)(a) of the 1999 Constitution.