BUA Group has described the publication of Dangote Group wherein it stated that BUA misinterpreted the fact about a pending court case as untrue and laden with inconsistencies.
A statement by BUA Group explained that Dangote in its hurry to deny the recent court order which granted BUA rights to three of its mining sites in Obu, Okpella in Edo State failed to justify the alleged misinterpretation in its publication but stylishly stated that it has appealed the judgement.
The company corrected Dangote on it claims that BUA was granted its mining lease from the Governor of Edo State restating that the authority to grant a mining license is within the sole jurisdiction of the Ministry of Mines and Steel Development through the Nigeria Mining Cadastre Office, which granted the BUA licenses.
Again, the leading cement giant further described the claims
by Dangote to lay claim to BUA’s mining sites in Edo as absurd as Dangote’s
mining license was granted under Kogi State while BUA licenses and mining sites
respectively cover and are located in Obu, Okpella in Edo State.
BUA Group said they will not join issues with Dangote as the intention of its
publication was to inform its shareholders and other stakeholders of the
judgment of the Federal High Court and not commence a media trial.
According to the statement titled: RE: BUA OBU MINES, OKPELLA EDO STATE, it read: “We read with dismay the publication by the Dangote Group which purports to “set the records straight” with regards to the earlier publication of the BUA group on the recent judgment of the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/B/CS/101/2017: BUA v. IGP & Ors. (“BUA Fundamental Right Suit”), which restrains Dangote Industries Limited (“DIL”) and other Respondents in the suit from interfering in BUA Group’s mining sites in Obu, Okpella, Edo State.
“In the said publication by Dangote Group, it was alleged that the initial publication of the BUA Group was riddled with misrepresentations and deliberate distortions of facts. We however note that the Dangote Group failed to identify any specific fact, which was distorted. On the contrary, the Dangote Group reiterated the fact that the judgment of the Court indeed restrained DIL and the other Respondents, as contended by BUA, albeit stating that the judgment of the Court constitutes complete aberrations and contains manifests contradictions; and it has exercised its legal right to appeal the decision of the Court. Whilst we consider this attempt to disparage the Court on the pages of print media as an affront, we shall not be joining issues with the Dangote Group, as we are of the view that the Court can protect itself and DIL reserves the right to appeal the decision of the Court.
“Paradoxically, the Dangote Group’s publication was fraught with untrue statements, which it touted as the facts of the matter in an attempt to misinform the general public. Accordingly, we seek to clarify the fallacies as follows:
Title to Mining Sites
“The Dangote Group alleged that BUA claims to have been granted its mining licenses from the Governor of Edo State. In this regard, it is imperative to note that BUA has never contended that the Governor of Edo State granted its licenses, as the authority to grant a mining license is within the sole jurisdiction of the Ministry of Mines and Steel Development through the Nigeria Mining Cadastre Office, which granted the BUA licenses. Further, both the Hon. Minister of Mines and Steel Development and the Nigeria Mining Cadastre Office are defendants in Suit No. FHC/B/CS/7/2016: BUA International Limited & Anor. v. Hon. Minister of Mines and Steel Development (“BUA Suit”), wherein BUA asserts its legal and beneficial ownership of the mining sites.
“Further, the Dangote Group explicitly asserted that BUA does not have any right to the mining sites on the basis of the response of the Director-General of the Mining Cadastre Office to BUA’s application to renew its licenses. Needless to say, the Director-General’s ministry and parastatal are also Defendants in the BUA Suit pending in Court and the reaction is therefore not surprising.
“We wish to state clearly that the mining license granted to
Dangote Group explicitly states that the location is in Kogi State, Nigeria,
while the BUA licenses and mining sites respectively cover and are located in
Obu, Okpella, Edo State, Nigeria. The Dangote Group’s attempt to lay claim to
mining sites not within a geographical area covered by its license is therefore
ludicrous.
“The general public is therefore advised that Dangote Group’s claims are
nothing but an attempt to unilaterally determine the outcome of the very matter
the Court has been approached to determine in Suit No. FHC/B/CS/7/2016 – BUA
Suit, which is still pending”.
“With respect to the Dangote Group’s interpretation of the
consequence of its Appeal of the decision of the Court, it is trite law that an
Appeal does not amount to a stay of execution, and the Dangote Group is only
being mischievous by suggesting that BUA is refrained from taking benefit of
the judgment, which was in its favor. As held by the Supreme Court in the case
of Tai Ajomale v. Yuduat and Anor (1991) All N.L.R. 197:
“The successful litigant is prima facie entitled to the fruits of the judgment
in his favour, it is expressly provided in Section 24 of the Supreme Court Act,
1960, that an appeal does not operate as a stay of execution.”
“The Courts have also reiterated the position of law in the
case of Enabulele v. Agbonlahor (1994) 5 NWLR (PT. 342) 112 at P125, where it
was held that:
“It is trite law that under Section 18 of the Court of Appeal Act, 1976, the
filing of a Notice of Appeal does not operate as a stay of execution since the
Court will not normally deprive a successful party of the fruits of his
successful litigation”
“We shall refrain from further joining issues on this particular matter as the intention of our initial publication was to inform our shareholders and other stakeholders of the judgment of the Federal High Court and not to commence a media trial with the Dangote Group”.
