Court Allows Public Notice of Alkem Winding-Up Case Amid Corporate Dispute

A Lagos court has permitted Silena Trade Corporation to publicly announce its winding-up petition against Alkem Nigeria Limited, rejecting claims that the legal action was an abuse of the court process. Justice Dehinde Dipeolu of the Federal High Court authorized the advertisement of the petition in the Federal Government Gazette and two widely circulated newspapers on June 9, 2026.

“

the purpose of the advertisement is to notify creditors, shareholders, directors and other stakeholders whose interests may be affected by the proceedings.

This ruling marks a significant development in the protracted corporate conflict involving Alkem Nigeria Limited and its directors, Laju Chanrai, Ravi Chanrai, and A. Ramalingam. It paves the way for broader public awareness of the winding-up proceedings, which Silena argues is necessary to inform creditors, shareholders, and other stakeholders. Silena's legal team, represented by Bolu Agbaje Akadiri, had argued that court approval is required for such advertisements under the Companies Winding-Up Rules, 2001, to allow affected parties to lodge claims.

The respondents, represented by M.O. Ajana, had opposed the application, asserting that Silena's petition constituted an abuse of process. They pointed to a separate suit filed by Silena seeking to preserve Alkem's assets while simultaneously pursuing liquidation, arguing these actions sought contradictory outcomes. The respondents also noted a pending preliminary objection to the petition's competence and alleged the winding-up action was a tactic to pressure them into settling financial claims from failed commercial negotiations.

“

the petition amounted to an abuse of court process.

However, Justice Dipeolu found that subsequent events had altered the circumstances. The court noted that despite challenging the petition as an abuse of process, the respondents later filed their own application in November 2020 requesting a valuation of the company's assets and liabilities, a move that seemingly contradicted their initial stance.

“

subsequent developments in the case had significantly altered the circumstances relied upon by the respondents.