Reports of court ordering CBN to feeeze our account misleading – Polaris Bank
Polaris Bank has on Saturday clarified reports insinuating that an Ondo High Court ordered the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) to freeze its account is erroneous.
The bank made the clarification on the heels of reports published in a section of the media (Not Vanguard), wherein it was said that an Ondo High Court has granted a ganishee order directing the CBN to freeze the account of Polaris Bank over a judgment debt of N2,162,561,509.84k .
The order was reportedly made by Justice Adebusoye in an application filed by Ondo Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Sir Charles Titiloye, for Ganishee order nisi attaching all the sums of indebtedness of Polaris Bank to Ondo state Government in a Judgement delivered in suit No AK/75/2017.
Titiloye had filed the application over alleged failure and neglect of the bank to meet the condition of the stay of execution of the judgment.
The Bank in its reaction explained that the effect of the order is not to freeze the Bank’s account with CBN as erroneously published by a section of the media.
The Bank’s position was contained in a statement made available to the media on Saturday by the Head, Corporate Communications of Polaris Bank, Rasheed Bolarinwa.
The statement added that the ruling only set aside the contentious judgment sum until conclusion of hearing in the case.
The statemebt reads, “We are aware of the matter and our Solicitor has filed necessary processes to set aside the Garnishee order.
“The matter is on appeal and an application for stay of execution is pending at the Court of Appeal.Thus, the garnishee order ought not to have been obtained by the reason of the pending appeal and motion for stay.
“The Bank is yet to be served the Garnishee Order as required by law relating to Garnishee proceedings.
“Above all, the effect of the order is not to freeze the Bank’s account with CBN as erroneously published by a section of the media but to set aside the contentious judgment sum until conclusion of hearing in the case.”