An additional development in the enforcement battle over a ₦19.4 billion arbitral award in favor of Hanson Dredging & Marine Services Ltd. is that the respondent, SANEF Creatives Ltd., has appealed against the enforcement proceeding and petitioned the Chief Judge of Lagos State to hear the case.
‿
Amidst allegations of forum shopping and court process abuse in the high-stakes legal battle stemming from a terminated dredging and reclamation contract at the National Theatre, Lagos, Hanson characterizes the move as a deliberate attempt to thwart justice.
The legal battle is a result of Hanson Dredging’s disagreement with SANEF, a company owned by the Central Bank of Nigeria’s (CBN) Bankers’ Committee, about the illegal termination of the dredging and reclamation contract.
The agreement, which was signed in November 2021, was canceled in May 2022 after SANEF claimed that the 36-week period had passed, ignoring COVID-19-related delays and administrative obstacles.
Following that, Hanson Dredging, represented by Dr. Charles Mekwunye, SAN, filed for arbitration in 2023 and claimed that the CBN, then led by former Governor Godwin Emefiele, had illegally taken ₦4.2 billion in advance payments out of their account.
In a ruling issued on December 30, 2024, Sole Arbitrator Ayo Fanimokun determined that SANEF had broken the terms of the contract by ending it before Hanson had finished more than 60% of the work.
After Hanson Dredging was awarded ₦19.4 billion in a final arbitration proceedings, the company attempted to enforce the award through Suit No. LD/6707GCM/2023, which was recently transferred from Justice Olukolu to Justice O. A. Sunmonu of the Lagos State High Court by the Chief Judge of Lagos State.
On the other hand, SANEF, via its attorney Paul Usoro & Co., filed two more lawsuits (Suit No. LD/8056GCM/2024 and Suit No. LD/9221GCM/2025), the latter of which is presently pending before Justice Olukolu.
Read Also: One Dead as Hoodlums, Monarch’s Supporters Clash Over Lagos Park Dispute
Following that, the legal firm petitioned Justice Kazeem Alogba, the Chief Judge of Lagos State, to transfer the enforcement suit from Justice Sunmonu and combine all three cases before Justice Olukolu. J-
Along with other petitions, the firm has accused Justice Sunmonu of procedural overreach and judicial bias in a letter dated May 26, 2025, sent to the Chief Judge.
The judge allegedly displayed “unrestrained ambition” to hear all relevant cases in spite of an application for consolidation that was still pending.
Order 41 Rule 7(2) of the Lagos High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019, which gives the Chief Judge consolidation authority, was violated by Justice Sunmonu, according to the petition filed by SANEF’s attorney and former Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, President Mr. Paul Usoro, SAN.
In addition, his petition claimed that Justice Sunmonu demanded that the case that was related to Justice Olukolu be moved to his court.
Citing the danger of a miscarriage of justice, it asked the Chief Judge to reassign all suits pertaining to the case to either Justice Olukolu or to another judge, excluding Justice Sunmonu.
The petition was, however, denied by Hanson Dredging, via its lead attorney, Dr. Charles Mekwunye, SAN, who characterized the allegations as abusive, deceptive, and a risky attempt to intimidate the court.
A judge should not be humiliated in public for carrying out their legal duties, according to Dr. Mekwunye, who called the petition dated May 26, 2025, “unprofessional and scandalous.”
On May 27, 2025, Mekwunye noted that Paul Usoro SAN personally defended the petition in public, an action he said was intended to influence the judiciary.
Additionally, he pointed out that the petition contained insulting terms like “judicial tyranny” and “naked ambition,” which were blatant insults to Justice Sunmonu and the Lagos judiciary as a whole.
Dr. Mekwunye also expressed worry about what he called “abuse of court process” in the three separate lawsuits filed over the same transaction and the attempt to use the chief judge’s elevated position to get around the enforcement procedures.
He claimed that although SANEF strives for consolidation, its goal seems to be forum shopping—searching for a court that is more receptive—rather than judicial efficiency.
Citing appellate precedents such as Emperion v. Aflon and Ngere v. Okuruket, which maintain that consent from both parties is necessary for consolidation and that it should never be granted where it could cause procedural confusion or injustice, Dr. Mekwunye emphasized that consolidation cannot be imposed unilaterally.
In addition, he criticized Mr. Usoro’s portrayal of the court’s procedures from April 17, 2025, claiming that the decision only allowed SANEF to reply to Hanson’s request to enforce the arbitral verdict.
SANEF’s preliminary objection and Hanson Dredging’s application to enforce its Arbitral Award were the two motions scheduled for the April 17, 2025 hearing before Justice Sunmonu, according to Mekwunye.
Usoro allegedly told the court that a fresh complaint had been filed to overturn the judgment and asked for a postponement until the Chief Judge responded to his requests, according to his allegations.
According to Mekwunye, he was against the action, calling the new suit a flagrant abuse of the legal system and claiming that a letter to the Chief Judge does not serve as a stay of proceedings or provide an excuse for postponing a legitimate enforcement case.
A flurry of applications and petitions were later filed by Usoro, he said, including one accusing him of tampering with court records, a serious charge that ought to be handled separately and not used to halt ongoing proceedings.
Additionally, Mekwunye charged that the SANEF’s attorney was making a deliberate effort to influence the court assignment system by attempting to mandate that Justice Olukolu hear all court cases.
In his reply, Mekwunye stated that “no litigant has the right to select the judge who will hear their case.” There are clear guidelines: the Chief Judge alone has the authority to assign judges, and any attempt to interfere with that process is an assault on the judiciary.
“We thus appeal to his Lordship not to lend the weight of your exalted office to a law firm which is behaving as a law unto itself, grossly abusing the process of the court by filing several suits in respect of the said matter, nominating the particular judge to hear these various suits along the way insulting and humiliating judges and denigrating the judiciary under your watch,” Mekwunye said, urging the Chief Judge to disregard SANEF’s petition.
