Court Stops Trustfund from Appointing New CEO

Nnamdi Felix / Abuja

The crisis of confidence rocking Trustfund Pensions Plc continued unabated as the National Industrial Court sitting in Abuja has stopped the pension funds administrator from appointing a new managing director pending the determination of a suit filed by the ousted managing director, Mr. Bernand Nkem Ekwe. Ekwe is challenging his removal from office.

Presiding Justice A.O. Shogbola made the order after being informed by Mr. Adeyemi Pitan, counsel to Mr. Ekwe that the pension firm was taking steps to appoint a new managing director despite the fact that Ekwe was in court to challenge his removal.

Ekwe had dragged the firm to the Industrial Court claiming that he was unlawfully removed from office as managing director.

He asked the court to order that he be allowed to remain in office as managing director of the pension firm and entitled to be paid all wages, emoluments and other entitlements.

The Pensions Funds Administrator filed a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court to hear the case. However, before arguments could be taken on the objection, the court ordered the parties to maintain the status quo meaning that Trustfund should not appoint a new managing director until Ekwe’s case had been determined.

Dissatisfied with the court’s ruling, Trustfund dashed to the Court of Appeal in Abuja and filed an appeal asking the appellate court to set aside the lower court’s order stopping the firm from appointing a new managing director.

In the appeal filed by Mr. Festus Keyamo, the firm stated that the order stopping it from appointing a new managing director was given without jurisdiction.

“The trial judge erred in law when he held that the court could hear and determine an application to maintain status quo when there is a pending notice of preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court which has not been heard and determined.”

Keyamo further argued that since the court’s jurisdiction was being challenged, Justice Shogbola should not have assumed jurisdiction to order the parties to maintain status quo.

He said that a challenge of the court’s jurisdiction robbed the court of the jurisdiction to hear any other application until the jurisdiction to hear the substantive suit was determined.