Maurice Walton Consulting Firm sued the Kastina State authorities, accusing the state of failure to pay it 20 % of the $217.three million (N66.3bn) advisor price resulting from it from the Paris Club refund by the Federal Authorities.
However the Kastina State authorities refused to pay on the bottom that the contract with the firm was terminated half manner for failure to abide with phrases of contract.
Nasiru, an accountant, who works in debt administration division of the state ministry of finance, mentioned there was no contractual agreement over restoration of the over deduction.
Underneath cross examination from counsel to the plaintiff, Chijioke Okoli, Nasiru mentioned the state didn’t have any difficulty with the Federal Authorities to have engaged Mauritz Walton over the deduction by the Federal Ministry of Finance. “There was no letter that we complained of over deduction to the firm,” he mentioned.
When he was made to learn a letter, dated August 24, 2014, which engaged the firm to reconcile the debt profile of the state towards arriving on the over deduction, Nasiru mentioned one other letter was written to cancel the contract as a result of the firm didn’t fulfil some circumstances within the agreement.
Requested to supply any letter the place it was said that the firm didn’t fulfil some circumstances, Nasiru mentioned he had no letter to that impact, however solely the disengagement letter.
The trial choose, Justice Inyang Ekwo, thereafter fastened January 22, 2021, for adoption of addresses from all of the events.
The financial consulting firm took Kastina State to court docket claiming N13,253,774,451.60 being 20 % of the full N66.three billion refund resulting from Katsina, being charges for its consultancy companies to the state.
Within the go well with, the firm claimed that it was appointed by Katsina State, through a letter dated August 18, 2014, with reference No: MOF/STAFF/409/1/31 to determine and get well the surplus deductions by the Federal Authorities from its account to service its exterior debt between July 1995 and March 2002.
In its assertion of declare, the firm mentioned the Katsina State authorities agreed to pay it 20 % of what was as a result of state from the surplus deduction, generally known as the Paris Club Refund.
Mauritz Waltson said, in a witness assertion that, by the corporations efforts, it was ascertained that Katsina State was entitled to $217,274,991.01 (estimated at N66,268,872,258.00 calculated at an change charge of $1 to N305) as Paris Club Refund.
The assertion added that his corporations efforts yielded additional outcomes when President Muhammadu Buhari, in 2016 directed the fee of the primary tranche of the Paris Club refund to states, together with Katsina.
It additional said that regardless of the pendency of the go well with and current interim orders by the court docket, restraining additional fee to Katsina, the 2nd defendant (Central Financial institution of Nigeria), on the instruction of the first defendant (Finance Minister) not too long ago paid N35,364,610,435 to the 4th defendant (Katsina State), by the fifth defendant United Financial institution for Africa (UBA).
The firm additionally seeks an order compelling the Katsina State authorities to pay it the N13.35bn, being its due remuneration for the consultancy companies it rendered to the state resulting in the restoration and launch of the 4th defendants mentioned exterior debt extra debits refunds.
Within the different, the plaintiff needs the court docket to order the first, 2nd and third defendants Finance Minister, the CBN and the Accountant Normal of the Federation to pay it the quantity resulting from it.
It urged the court docket to order the sum resulting from or not it’s paid alongside with 20 % curiosity from October 1, 2018 till judgment and thereafter, at 10 per-cent till the judgment sum is totally paid.
The plaintiff equally seeks N75m value in opposition to the defendants Finance Minister, the Central Bankmof Nugeria (CBN), the Accountant Normal of the Federation (AGF), Katsina State authorities and the UBA.
All of the defendants have objected to the go well with and urged the court docket to dismiss it on the grounds that the plaintiff was not entitled to the reliefs it seeks.
The finance minister, the CBN, the AGF and UBA denied being occasion to the agreement between the plaintiff and the Katsina State authorities.
Get real time update about this post categories directly on your device, subscribe now.