Alleged Contract Breach: B4G Seeks Order To Block SAP Accounts In CBN, 21 Banks

A firm, B4G Consulting Ltd, has asked a Lagos State High Court
in Lagos to restrain Systems Applications Products from dissipating
sums up to $3,371,945.27 and N5mllion with 28 Respondents including
the Central Bank of Nigeria and 21 other banks, pending the hearing
and determination of an alleged contract breach suit. 

It is also seeking a Mareva injunction restraining the 1st –
28th Respondents from releasing to the SAP funds or other
instruments belonging to the SAP and held with the 1st – 28th
Respondents up to the value of $3,371,945.27 and N5mllion pending
the determination of this suit.

It is further seeking a Mareva injunction restraining the 1st –
28th Respondents from releasing to SAP any funds or other
instruments belonging to SAP and held with the 1st – 28th
Respondents up to the value of $3,371,945.27 and N5mllion pending
the hearing and determination of this suit.

It is also praying for an  order directing the 1st-28th
Respondents to file and serve Affidavits before the Court within
seven days of the grant of the three prayers above, “disclosing an
account of all monies, funds or other instruments belonging and/or
due and payable to the Defendants/Respondents and held with them.
Including but not limited to any pending contractual obligations
and payments due to the Defendants/Respondents as at the date of
service of this motion on each of the Respondents.”

The suit, which was formerly before Justice Ogunjobi, has now
been reassigned to Justice Ashade and proceedings are to resume on
March 26, 2021.

B4G Consulting Ltd & Anor, represented by Mr David Ogebe, are
the Claimants/Applicants in the suit marked LD/ADR/519/2016, while
Systems Applications Products Nig. Ltd and Systems Applications
Products (Africa Region) (Proprietary) Ltd are the
Defendants/Respondents and are represented by Adedapo Tunde-Olowu
SAN. 

28 others are nominal respondents in the application for a
Mareva Injunction. 

They include NATIONAL PETROLEUM INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
NIGERIA NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION (NNPC) 

3. NIGERIAN PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD

4. DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM RESOURCES

5. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA

6. DEBT MANAGEMENT OFFICE NIGERIA

7. ACCESS BANK NIGERIA PLC

B. ECOBANK NIGERIA LIMITED

9. CITIBANK NIGERIA LIMITED

10.FIDELITY BANK PLC

11. FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA LIMITED

12. FIRST CITY MONUMENT BANK

13.GLOBUS BANK LIMITED

14.GUARANTY TRUST BANK PLC

15. HERITAGE BANK PLC

16.KEYSTONE BANK PLC

17.POLARIS BANK PLC

18. PROVIDUS BANK

19. STANBICIBTC BANK PLC

20. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK NIGERIA LIMITED

21. STERLING BANK PLC

22.SUN TRUST BANK NIGERIA LTD

23. TITAN TRUST BANK LIMITED

24. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC

25.UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC

26.UNITY BANK PLC

27. WEMA BANK PLC

28. ZENITH BANK PLC

Apart from the Mareva Injunction, the claimant is also seeking
other reliefs in the main suit. These include:

“AN ORDER directing the Defendants to pay to the Claimants the
sum of

$83,169.78  being outstanding and unpaid sums, $117. 60 in
respect of hoteling for 8 Consultants from January – September 2010
and $267, 792 being pay for services of consultants between July to
September 2010

“AN ORDER directing the Defentants to provide full details and
render accounts including all reviews and payments received from
the NNPC in relation to the Enterprise Resource Planning System
contract between SAP and NNPC

“AN ORDER directing the Defendants to pay the full 10 per centum
face value of the Enterprise Resource Planning System contract as
valued at its date of completion. less previous payments to the
Claimants.

Or in the alternative to prayer (3) above)

“AN ORDER directing the Defendants to pay the sum of
$3,371.945.27 being the balance of payments due to the Claimants in
respect of their entitlement to 10 per cent of the face value of
the Enterprise Resource Planning System contract, among others.

B4G Consulting averred in its July 27, 2020 amended statement of
claim that sometime in 2009 the defendants engaged it to help
broker, procure negotiate, secure and implement an Enterprise
Resource Planning System (ERP”) contract (the SAP ERP contract with
the NNPC.

The consideration provided in respect of the engagement was the
supply or provision of services to a minimum 10 per cent of the
face value of any secured contract.

Pursuant to the claimants engagement, a contract with initial
value of $36.75m (subsequently revalued to $42m) was negotiated and
secured between the NNPC and SAP.

The claimant commenced the supply or provision of services in
line with the terms of its engagement by SAP, but before it could
provide the minimum 10 per cent of the ERP contract, Claimant’s
provision of services was halted – by SAP vide letter dated 12 July
2010.

SAP without any investigation whatsoever and without hearing at
all from the Claimants issued a letter dated 12 July 2010
unilaterally imposing fresh contractual terms on the parties
including demanding exclusion of the physical presence of the 2nl
Claimant from the project. 

Despite the Claimant’s letters in response dated 20 July and 12
August 2010 respectively, SAP ignored these letters. 

“The Defendants did not issue payment advice to the Claimants
but only made sporadic lump sum payments to the Claimants account
on 21 and 26 July, and 16 August 2010 in the cumulative sum of
$359.49295 without identifying which specific involces were being
paid. This the Claimants have calculated the total Invoices issued
in the month of June 2010 and deducted the payments made by the
Defendants to arrive at the outstanding sum for the June 2010
Invoices.

But opposing the claimant’s prayer in its February 22, 2021
amended statement of defence, the defendants described the
claimant’s case as frivolous, an abuse of court processes and
should be struck out with substantial costs against the
claimants. 

They averred that the claimant was “not entitled to the
$83,698.78, $117,66, $3,371.945.27 claimed in this action or any
other judgments

“The Defendant states that it has no contractual obligation to
make any disclosures to the Claimant with respect to the said
contract as alleged by the It further added: 

“The Defendant also state that they never agreed that the
condition to be provided in part of the ERP contract with NNPC ‘is
a minimum 10 per cent of face value of any contract’ as alleged by
the Claimants.”

A firm, B4G Consulting Ltd, has asked a Lagos State High Court
in Lagos to restrain Systems Applications Products from dissipating
sums up to $3,371,945.27 and N5mllion with 28 Respondents including
the Central Bank of Nigeria and 21 other banks, pending the hearing
and determination of an alleged contract breach suit. 

It is also seeking a Mareva injunction restraining the 1st –
28th Respondents from releasing to the SAP funds or other
instruments belonging to the SAP and held with the 1st – 28th
Respondents up to the value of $3,371,945.27 and N5mllion pending
the determination of this suit.

It is further seeking a Mareva injunction restraining the 1st –
28th Respondents from releasing to SAP any funds or other
instruments belonging to SAP and held with the 1st – 28th
Respondents up to the value of $3,371,945.27 and N5mllion pending
the hearing and determination of this suit.

It is also praying for an  order directing the 1st-28th
Respondents to file and serve Affidavits before the Court within
seven days of the grant of the three prayers above, “disclosing an
account of all monies, funds or other instruments belonging and/or
due and payable to the Defendants/Respondents and held with them.
Including but not limited to any pending contractual obligations
and payments due to the Defendants/Respondents as at the date of
service of this motion on each of the Respondents.”

The suit, which was formerly before Justice Ogunjobi, has now
been reassigned to Justice Ashade and proceedings are to resume on
March 26, 2021.

B4G Consulting Ltd & Anor, represented by Mr David Ogebe, are
the Claimants/Applicants in the suit marked LD/ADR/519/2016, while
Systems Applications Products Nig. Ltd and Systems Applications
Products (Africa Region) (Proprietary) Ltd are the
Defendants/Respondents and are represented by Adedapo Tunde-Olowu
SAN. 

28 others are nominal respondents in the application for a
Mareva Injunction. 

They include NATIONAL PETROLEUM INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
NIGERIA NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION (NNPC) 

3. NIGERIAN PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD

4. DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM RESOURCES

5. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA

6. DEBT MANAGEMENT OFFICE NIGERIA

7. ACCESS BANK NIGERIA PLC

B. ECOBANK NIGERIA LIMITED

9. CITIBANK NIGERIA LIMITED

10.FIDELITY BANK PLC

11. FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA LIMITED

12. FIRST CITY MONUMENT BANK

13.GLOBUS BANK LIMITED

14.GUARANTY TRUST BANK PLC

15. HERITAGE BANK PLC

16.KEYSTONE BANK PLC

17.POLARIS BANK PLC

18. PROVIDUS BANK

19. STANBICIBTC BANK PLC

20. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK NIGERIA LIMITED

21. STERLING BANK PLC

22.SUN TRUST BANK NIGERIA LTD

23. TITAN TRUST BANK LIMITED

24. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC

25.UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC

26.UNITY BANK PLC

27. WEMA BANK PLC

28. ZENITH BANK PLC

Apart from the Mareva Injunction, the claimant is also seeking
other reliefs in the main suit. These include:

“AN ORDER directing the Defendants to pay to the Claimants the
sum of

$83,169.78  being outstanding and unpaid sums, $117. 60 in
respect of hoteling for 8 Consultants from January – September 2010
and $267, 792 being pay for services of consultants between July to
September 2010

“AN ORDER directing the Defentants to provide full details and
render accounts including all reviews and payments received from
the NNPC in relation to the Enterprise Resource Planning System
contract between SAP and NNPC

“AN ORDER directing the Defendants to pay the full 10 per centum
face value of the Enterprise Resource Planning System contract as
valued at its date of completion. less previous payments to the
Claimants.

Or in the alternative to prayer (3) above)

“AN ORDER directing the Defendants to pay the sum of
$3,371.945.27 being the balance of payments due to the Claimants in
respect of their entitlement to 10 per cent of the face value of
the Enterprise Resource Planning System contract, among others.

B4G Consulting averred in its July 27, 2020 amended statement of
claim that sometime in 2009 the defendants engaged it to help
broker, procure negotiate, secure and implement an Enterprise
Resource Planning System (ERP”) contract (the SAP ERP contract with
the NNPC.

The consideration provided in respect of the engagement was the
supply or provision of services to a minimum 10 per cent of the
face value of any secured contract.

Pursuant to the claimants engagement, a contract with initial
value of $36.75m (subsequently revalued to $42m) was negotiated and
secured between the NNPC and SAP.

The claimant commenced the supply or provision of services in
line with the terms of its engagement by SAP, but before it could
provide the minimum 10 per cent of the ERP contract, Claimant’s
provision of services was halted – by SAP vide letter dated 12 July
2010.

SAP without any investigation whatsoever and without hearing at
all from the Claimants issued a letter dated 12 July 2010
unilaterally imposing fresh contractual terms on the parties
including demanding exclusion of the physical presence of the 2nl
Claimant from the project. 

Despite the Claimant’s letters in response dated 20 July and 12
August 2010 respectively, SAP ignored these letters. 

“The Defendants did not issue payment advice to the Claimants
but only made sporadic lump sum payments to the Claimants account
on 21 and 26 July, and 16 August 2010 in the cumulative sum of
$359.49295 without identifying which specific involces were being
paid. This the Claimants have calculated the total Invoices issued
in the month of June 2010 and deducted the payments made by the
Defendants to arrive at the outstanding sum for the June 2010
Invoices.

But opposing the claimant’s prayer in its February 22, 2021
amended statement of defence, the defendants described the
claimant’s case as frivolous, an abuse of court processes and
should be struck out with substantial costs against the
claimants. 

They averred that the claimant was “not entitled to the
$83,698.78, $117,66, $3,371.945.27 claimed in this action or any
other judgments

“The Defendant states that it has no contractual obligation to
make any disclosures to the Claimant with respect to the said
contract as alleged by the It further added: 

“The Defendant also state that they never agreed that the
condition to be provided in part of the ERP contract with NNPC ‘is
a minimum 10 per cent of face value of any contract’ as alleged by
the Claimants.”