Dangote: BUA’s mining leases non-existent
BUA: No One Is Above the Law, Respect Judicial Process
After several months of seeming ceasefire, Dangote Industries Limited and BUA Group, majority owners of Dangote Cement Plc and BUA Cement Plc respectively, may have renewed the war over ownership of the Obu-Okpella Mines in the Edo north senatorial zone.
Dangote Industries and BUA are owned by Alhaji Aliko Dangote and Abdul Samad Rabiu respectively, both of who are billionaires from Kano State, north-west Nigeria, just as both cement companies are listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE).
BUA Group had fired the first salvo on Sunday night with a statement that a Federal High Court in Benin City, Edo State in a recent judgment has ordered the Inspector General of Police, Commissioner of Police, Edo State, Dangote Industries, and Dangote Cement Plc, being first to fourth respondents in the case, to stay off the mining sites and not interfere in any manner whatsoever with BUA’s operation at the disputed mining lease sites.
But the management of Dangote Group, in its counter statement on Monday, denied the claim by the BUA Group to the mining sites, which it argued was riddled with misrepresentations and deliberate distortions of facts.
But BUA, in another counter-statement, argued that Dangote Group failed to point out any such ‘misrepresentations.’
DIL had advised “the regulatory agencies to disregard completely the unfounded and mischievous claim and publication by the BUA Group,
In a statement signed by its Group Executive Director, Devakumar Edwin, Dangote Group its lawyers had vigorously defended the suit filed by the BUA Group seeking a perpetual Injunction “against further interferences with their purported fundamental rights to property and privacy.”
Edwin said the group has appealed the said “judgment and until the Appellate Court rules, BUA cannot lay claim or even operate on the mining site.”
Giving details, he recalled that in 2014, the Dangote Group and AICO entered into an agreement for the transfer of 2541ML from AICO to Dangote Group.
“AICO thereafter applied to the Ministry of Mines for the approval of the Transfer vide a Mining Lease Transfer Form dated 11 July 2014. In 2016, the Ministry of Mines wrote to the Dangote Group to convey the approval of the Ministry for the Transfer/Assignment of 2541ML from AICO to Dangote Group with effect from 03 February 2016.
“Following the approval of the Ministry, the Dangote Group became the legal holder and owner of the Mining Lease No. 2541ML. The 2541ML Certificate was thereafter endorsed to reflect the transfer from AICO to the Dangote Group”, he added.
Dangote Group therefore warned the public and stakeholders of “BUA Group not to take any steps to enter, mine or interfere with the disputed mining leases pending the determination of the Appeal and/or the two suits pending before Umar J.”
Any such steps, it stressed, will be considered a contempt of court, recalling that the Supreme Court, in the case of Governor of Lagos State v. Chief Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (pt. 18) 621), held that: “Once a party is aware of a pending court process, even when the court has not made a specific injunctive order, parties are bound to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the court process”.
Edwin insisted although BUA Group claims to have any right to the mining sites based on a title pursuant to Mining Leases 18912 and 18913, it was only as recently as October 9, 2019, that “its subsidiary (Edo Cement Company Ltd) applied to the Director-General of Mining Cadastre Office & Centre, Abuja for the renewal of the said Mining Leases Nos. 18912 and 18913.
In response to the BUA Group’s renewal Applications, Edwin continued, “the Mining Cadastre Office, in Abuja in its letters dated 18 October 2019 wrote back to BUA Group to inform them in very categorical terms that the Mining Leases Nos 18912 and 18913 were nonexistent and were not valid Mineral titles.”
Edwin further explained that “interestingly and to show the character of the BUA Group, these supremely critical facts were never brought to the attention of the Federal High Court in the Fundamental Rights Suit even though the Mining Cadastre Office letters were written about 8 (eight) months before the Judgment of the Court was delivered. In effect and significantly so, when that Court was handing down its decision and issuing injunctive orders to protect BUA, BUA knew and was well aware, by virtue of the above-referenced letters, that its purported rights to the mining lease were non-existent!”
These facts, he stressed further, “constitute sufficient proof that the BUA Group’s claim to Mining Leases Nos. 18912 and 18913 rest entirely on quicksand and is therefore invalid baseless and totally non-existent. The general public is advised to be guided accordingly.”
BUA Group described the claims by Dangote Group as untrue and fraught with misrepresentations, even as it accusing DIL of being in a hurry to twist facts, and in the process failing to justify the alleged misinterpretation in its publication, only to stylishly announced that it has appealed the judgement whilst accepting the recent court order, which granted BUA the right to peaceful possession and operations of three of its mining sites in Obu, Okpella in Edo State.
“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,” BUA added.
The Dangote Group, BUA continued, also questioned the right of BUA to institute the BUA Fundamental Right Suit on the basis that it was a clear abuse of court process as there are two other pending suits – the BUA Suit and Suit No. FHC/B/CS/74/2016: Dangote Industries Limited & Anor. v. BUA International Limited &Ors (Dangote Suit).
“This is notwithstanding that the Dangote Group itself ironically commenced the Dangote Suit during the pendency of the BUA Suit. Moreover, it is trite law that any fundamental right suit is an independent claim, which does not impede a pending dispute. In this instance, the suit was deemed necessary in view of Dangote Groups use of the Nigeria Police Force to disrupt the possessory right of BUA Group and to safeguard the lives of BUA Group’s employees. Indeed, Court confirmed this in the BUA Fundamental Rights Suit where it was stated:“that the 1st and 2nd Respondents (Police) allowed themselves to be used by the 3rd and 4th Respondents (DIL and Dangote Cement)”
“It is imperative to note that the Dangote Group’s use of the Nigeria Police Force to disrupt BUA’s operations was done brazenly after DIL had applied to Court for a restraining order against BUA in Suit No. FHC/B/CS/74/2016., which was granted ex parte,, but set aside by the court upon a robust challenge by BUA. Interestingly, the Dangote Group did not deny resorting to self-help in its publication. It is our contention that no one should be above the law, no matter how highly placed, powerful or influential as the rule of law is the pillar and foundation of any democracy.
BUA further denied Dangote’s claim that BUA was granted its mining lease by the Edo State Governor, 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.
BUA also dismissed Dangote’s claim to BUA’s mining sites in Edo as absurd and frivolous, given that 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.
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 BUA’s favour. 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”
BUA said it will not join issues with Dangote, since it only seeks to inform BUA stakeholders of the judgment of the Federal High Court which granted BUA’s and not commence a media trial.
