CLAIMANTS REPLY TO THE DEFENDANTS STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LAGOS

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

SUIT NO:……………….

• TAACOT INVESTMENTS LIMITED CLAIMANTS
• MR. FELIX ODUMEGWU

AND

• AFRIBANK NIGERIA PLC DEFENDANTS/COUNTER-CLAIMANTS
• AIL SECURITIES LIMITED

CLAIMANTS REPLY TO THE DEFENDANTS STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

The Claimant joins issues with the Defendants on their Statement of Defence and Counter-Claim and shall put the Defendants to strict proof of the averments contained in the said Statement of Defence and Counter-Claim at the trial of the suit save in so far as it consists of admissions.

• In response to the averment contained in paragraph 3(b) of the Defendant's Defence and Counter-Claim, the Claimants aver that though the specific words "Margin Loan Facility" was not used at the time of entering into the agreement with the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Counter-Claimants, the effect purpose and intent of the agreement was that of a Margin Loan Facility hence the 20% margin contribution without any further collateral.
• In response to the averment contained in paragraph 3(c) of the Defendant's Defence and Counter-Claim, the Claimants/Defendants to the Counter-Claim state that neither the 2nd Claimant nor the l Claimant needed any facility from the 1st Defendant. It was Helen Aninye, the 1st Defendant's relationship manager to the 2nd Claimant/Defendant who kept pestering him to patronize the Defendants and therefore recommended and brought the indomie and chams private placement offers to him.
• The 2nd Claimant/Defendant to the Counter-Claim told the said Helen Aninye that the loan is a margin facility and can only be paid enblock after the shares are listed and sold. she agreed and when the 2nd Claimant requested her to amend the offer letter to reflect this position, she told him not to worry because the offer letter was just a routine letter and that many conditions there are not required to be fulfilled.
• In this regard therefore, the said Helen Aninye applied for a waiver from the 1st Defendant to allow her continue even though the 2nd Defendant does not deal with private placements. It is also the reason the said Helen Aninye got the 1st Defendant to accept only a 2O% contribution and waiver of many conditions precedent to draw down before taking and applying the funds.
• Under the Agreement, upon being purchased, the shares were warehoused with the Defendants/Counter-Claimants who had a duty to have traded with them and be diligent in the exercise.
• In response to the averment contained in paragraph 3(g) of the Defendant's Defence and Counter-Claim, the Claimants/Defendants to the Counter-Claim aver that they did not default in any of the terms and conditions of the Agreement, neither did the 2nd Claimant/Counter-Claimant deliberately or willfully make himself unavailable for negotiations or become evasive.
• In response to the averments contained in paragraph 3(h) of the Defendant's Defence and Counter-Claim the Claimants/Defendants to the Counter-Claim aver that there is a round the clock surveillance by security operatives at the residence of the 2nd Claimant/Defendant to the Counter-Claim, whether or not he is present in the house, given his caliber and societal status.
• In response to the averments contained in paragraph 3(i) of the Defendant's Defence and Counter-Claim the Claimants/Defendants to the Counter-Claim aver that they never took any loan or any money at all from the Defendants neither are they not indebted to the Defendants herein in any sum of money at all.
• The Claimants/Defendants to the Counter-Claim further aver that though the Defendants allege an indebtedness of the Claimants, the account would not have been in debit if the Defendants/Counter-Claimants had been diligent in the handling of the Claimants' said account.
• The said Helen Aninye managed the account and that is why the name on the certificate is not the Claimants' name neither is the address theirs.
• The 2nd Claimant/Defendant to the Counter-Claim due to the said Helen Aninye's pestering, agreed to bring the 20% contribution with the clear understanding that the Claimants would only have to pay for the facility at the conclusion of the transaction when the stocks are listed, as stated in the private placement documents she had brought to him.
• Even when the Defendants noticed that the market was crashing and would experience a delay in being listed, they wanted any investor who wanted their funds back to come for it but Helen Aninye, being the relationship manager in charge of the accounts advised and insisted that the Claimants continue and not take the option of taking the facility back.
• She also persisted because the two facilities were like a returned favour for the Claimants' N250m investment in the Afribank public offer.
• In the premises, the averments contained in the Defendants' Statement of Defence afford no defence to the Claimants suit.

Dated this……………………….. day of…………………. 2015.