Federal High Court Orders Status Quo In Feud Between NISA Members

A Federal High Court in Lagos has ordered feuding parties in the Nigerian Shipowners Association (NISA) to maintain the status quo ante in the case brought before it by the association’s President; Capt Olaniyi Labinjo.
The NISA president and five corporate members of the association, namely: Energy Factor Marine & Oil Services Limited, Ocean Crest International Services Limited, Pokat Nigeria Limited, Belfor Nigeria Limited and Equitorial Energy Company Limited had approached the court after a June 3, 2015 meeting of a faction of the association.

A Federal High Court in Lagos has ordered feuding parties in the Nigerian Shipowners Association (NISA) to maintain the status quo ante in the case brought before it by the association’s President; Capt Olaniyi Labinjo.
The NISA president and five corporate members of the association, namely: Energy Factor Marine & Oil Services Limited, Ocean Crest International Services Limited, Pokat Nigeria Limited, Belfor Nigeria Limited and Equitorial Energy Company Limited had approached the court after a June 3, 2015 meeting of a faction of the association.
The defendants in the case are: Incorporated Trustees of Nigeria Shipowners Association of Nigeria, Mr Aminu Umar and Mr Tunji Brown.
The plaintiffs had approached the Court for “an an order of Interim Injunction restraining the Defendant/Respondents, his agents, employers, servants or privies from taking over the official capability of some of the Plaintiffs/Applicant position/Office thereon, including excluded members as a result of the meetings held on 3rd June, pending the hearing and determination of the originating summons”.
A certified true copy of the order by the presiding judge; Justice M.N Yunusa, and dated July 3, 2015, revealed that, it was ordered that the status quo be maintained, while the respondents are served with the originating summons.
The case was subsequently adjourned by the Judge to July 9, 2015 “for report of compliance”.
But the case could not proceed however on the adjourned date, as one of the respondents was said to be out of the country.