A Plateau State High Court sitting in Jos , Honourable Justice Ishaku Kunda has adjourned to the 27th November 2022 for ruling on two applications brought by Bolnanan Nigeria Ltd & 129 others challenging the Managing Director of Bleneson Services Nig Ltd, Engr Lawson Ngoa, the contractor who collected the sum of N26.6B for the completion of the Legacy Project by the Plateau State Executive Council.
About 129 contractors handling the Governor Simon Bako Lalong Legacy projects, no fewer than 9 of them have been reported dead from various degrees of illness over non-payment of the contract sum of N26.6B after obtaining a judgment against Bleneson Services Nig Ltd, contractors of Lalong Legacy Project …
The contractors have raised concern that after the Plateau State Government has terminated the first contract their fate is still hanging up whereby they are now selecting individuals for re-awarding when most of them, the contractors don’t understand the arrangement as they’re soliciting the government to deal directly with the leadership.
Today the matter came up for hearing of the motions, in fact, we have two motions.
We already filled for summary judgment to enter Judgement in favor of the Claimant.
This is a very special case, is not a case that is in line with the procedures that you are going to take witnesses.
This matter is based on affidavit evidence, there is no issue that you can say that it is irreconcilable in the matter.
These are matters that is straightforward. It has to do with what is called liquidated money demand that is already in the hands of the defendant.
They have worked, they have not been paid, this money is incalculable and it is exact.
So the court provides that instead of wasting time, you can file a writ of summons, you can file a motion for Judgement to be entered because there is no argument concerning the figure that has entered, that we have done.
The second is that we want the court to grant interlocutory injection we have already granted an interim injunction, meaning that the defendant should not transfer the money in his custody to the 1st defendant which we have been able to do.
What is so delightful today, the defendant has already taken the service of a lawyer from Abuja, They served us with a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Court, that it doesn’t have the requisite jurisdictional power to entertain the matter.
We are on the side of the Claimant. In their contention, they are saying that all the Claimants we are representing ought not to have filed the matter in the first place, they ought to have resorted to arbitration.
The construction agreement between the Claimant has already made a provision under section 34 that in the event of a dispute, they should resort to arbitration before litigation.
What we are saying they have missed it completely. In that same agreement, it gives a provision that says if any of the parties breach the agreement, have an ample opportunity of 10 days to send notice to say correctly this breach which our client has done.
After writing the notice, they didn’t respond, we went ahead to terminate the contract which no longer exists in the eyes of the law.
Another thing they have done, which in my legal mind is unlawful, said our client can not approach the court in Jos, unless Abuja, which we also challenge that they can’t decide for us where to decide our matter.
Today when they came to court, they didn’t file a defense to our claim. Because what the law provided is that even if you have P. O, file defence to the claim, on that day both the P. O and the claim will be taken together, and the judge will give a consolidated ruling.
If their P. O succeeds, it means our case fails, it doesn’t, the court can go ahead to try the matter, if finds merit in our case, it enters Judgement on our behalf.
Today we have challenged their preliminary objection, which is wrong as we served them our process 7th July, 22, they suppose to file their memorandum of appearance which means an intention to defend an action.
They didn’t file it until almost 15th September, 22, when we served them July so we have challenged their appearance, because that is the foundation of the matter. , we stress that If your appearance is faulty, you ought not to be heard. At the end of the day, the court rules on rule 13 and sub-rule 1(2)(3)(4) respectively.
The defense counsel urged the court to stand down for two hours, but the court said no you were given ample opportunities but you failed to utilize them.
The court held that the submission of the claimant’s counsel was done in accordance with the guidelines and proceedings of the state high court so that we can continue with the matter.
Barr. Yakubu Bawa emphasized that the matter has been adjourned to Nov, 22 for ruling on two applications brought by the plaintiff’s counsel, adding that Our client in an effort to make their lives better, borrowed money from various banks to execute the contracts that they got from the plateau state government which is called Lalong Legacy Project.
He told this medium, “We have 129 contractors involved, they did their job, perform their own part of the bargain as far as the job is concerned”.
They didn’t fail in any way whatsoever, ln fact is the defendant that failed woefully on their part.
We make efforts to settle out of court. What the law provides is that, as Counsel to the Claimant, is to write what is called a pre-action protocol, we obliged them the opportunity to pave the way to settle the matter, but they ignored us which gives us the opportunity to file the matter in court, he said.
We have reached this level, we are praying that at the end of the day, the Judgement will be in our favor.
So that at the end of the day, Justice will be achieved.
They are decrying that the project cannot be re-awarded to a new contractor, because there is a pending case before the court of law on the project.
“Litigation is on between the former contractor & Government Contractor and also contractor and other sub-contractors as such it is not possible for the same project to be re-awarded.
He further faulted the government for saying they were terminating or have terminated the contract on the grounds of non-performance after the Plateau State where Lalong has been quoted saying the project was 70percent to completion. “If we have done 70percent like they say, what then will stop us from completing the project?”
“We don’t need to compound this issue, bringing in another contractor now when the main contractor is still alive, and the case is still before the court of Law, we will only compound the issues more as bringing in the new contractor will amount to more litigation, and the more we go into litigation the more the project will still not be uncompleted ”.
“This case is before the court of Law and we have not been paid a dime by anyone, neither has anyone been sent to me, nor approached me for settlement, and there is no consent agreement made all through the one year that the case has been in court”.
They stated that the government was also in support that the Lalong Legacy Project being completed as it was for the overall interest of the Plateau State Citizens.
The Projects, 21 in all, were dubbed ‘Lalong’s Legacy Projects and they include 9 primary schools, 6 secondary schools and 6 hospitals, all of world-standard and located across the 17 local government areas of the State.
The State Executive Council said, it approved the award of the contract for the completion of the projects at the sum of N26.6 billion following the termination of the contract with the previous contractor which was a decision taken at the end of the Executive Council Meeting.
“You would recall that Bleneson Services Ltd had on March 16, instituted a suit seeking to restrain the Plateau government from terminating its contract with the company for the construction of schools and hospitals under the Lalong Legacy Projects”.
The institution of the suit was after the Plateau state government issued a 30-day “Notice of Termination of Contract” on the Company on March 9, following what it claimed to be failure of the company to deliver a phase of the project.
Presiding Judge Justice Ishaku Kunda , struck out the case after it held that there was a failure of mandatory steps failed to be taken by the defendants as required by the rules of court emphasized on the court of jurisdiction to handle the matter.
