The Federal High Court in Lagos has granted Silena Trade Corporation leave to advertise its winding-up petition against Alkem Nigeria Limited, dismissing objections that the action constituted an abuse of court process.
In a ruling delivered on June 9, 2026, Justice Dehinde Dipeolu authorised Silena to publish notices of the petition in the Federal Government Gazette on two widely circulated newspapers.
The decision marks a significant step in the long-running corporate dispute involving Alkem Nigeria Limited and its directors, Laju Chanrai, Ravi Chanrai and A. Ramalingam, as it opens the door for wider public notification of the winding-up proceedings.
At the hearing, Bolu Agbaje Akadiri, for the petitioner, while M.O. Ajana, appeared for the respondents.
Silena had filed a Motion on Notice dated October 29, 2019, seeking leave to advertise the petition in accordance with the Companies Winding-Up Rules, 2001.
In support of the application, the petitioner argued that under Order 19 Rule 1 of the Companies Winding-Up Rules, a winding-up petition cannot be advertised without the court’s approval.
Counsel submitted that the purpose of the advertisement is to notify creditors, shareholders, directors and other stakeholders whose interests may be affected by the proceedings.
Silena further contended that Alkem Nigeria Limited has numerous stakeholders who should be informed of the petition to enable them take appropriate steps, including lodging claims where necessary.
The petitioner maintained that its case was founded on the “just and equitable” ground for winding up a company under the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA).
The respondents opposed the application, arguing that the petition amounted to an abuse of court process.
They contended that Silena had previously instituted another suit seeking orders to preserve Alkem’s assets while simultaneously pursuing a winding-up action against the company.
According to the respondents, the two proceedings sought conflicting outcomes, with one aimed at preserving the company and the other seeking its liquidation.
They also informed the court that a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the petition was pending and urged the court to refuse the application.
The respondents further alleged that the winding-up petition was not filed in good faith but was intended to pressure them into settling financial claims arising from failed commercial negotiations.
They argued that the petitioner had initiated multiple legal and regulatory actions against the company as part of a broader strategy to exert commercial pressure.
In resolving the application, Justice Dipeolu held that subsequent developments in the case had significantly altered the circumstances relied upon by the respondents.
The judge noted that despite challenging the petition as an abuse of process, the respondents later filed an application in November 2020 seeking a valuation of the company’s assets and liabilities and requesting the court to make determinations based on the valuation report.
Following that application, the court appointed Ademola Oladeinde & Co. to value the company’s assets and later ordered a liquidation-based valuation to ascertain the company’s actual winding-up value.
After difficulties arose in completing the exercise, the court subsequently appointed Leke Sanni & Associates to undertake the valuation.
Justice Dipeolu also referred to allegations in the petitioner’s further affidavit that the respondents failed to provide the documents, information and access required by the court-appointed valuers, despite Silena’s willingness to bear the cost of the exercise.
