Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• CPN7 was invoked to assess whether the Plaintiffs’ Amended Statement of Claim was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process

• The Defendants argued the claim sought similar relief as a related Originating Application in Action No. 2401 16858

• The Court examined distinctions in parties and causes of action between the Statement of Claim and the Originating Application

• Relief under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, Business Corporations Act (Alberta), and Canada Business Corporations Act was cited in the pleadings

• The Plaintiffs were absent, while the Defendants made written submissions through The Republic Law

• The Court found the Statement of Claim could proceed, ruling CPN7 inapplicable

Facts and outcome of the case

In Lawal v SEOL Energy Inc, 2025 ABKB 342, the Plaintiffs, Yusau Lawal and Safurat Lawal, filed an Amended Statement of Claim on February 26, 2025, against SEOL Energy Inc, Samson Effiong, and John Jerry Kalu. They sought repayment of funds, oppression remedies, damages for harm and inconvenience, and relief under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3.

On May 13, 2025, Associate Chief Justice D.B. Nixon received a letter dated April 28, 2025, from The Republic Law, acting for the Defendants. The letter requested the Court to review the Plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim under Civil Practice Note 7 (CPN7), invoking Rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010. This provision permits summary dismissal of claims that are frivolous, vexatious, or abusive.

The Defendants argued that the Statement of Claim sought relief similar to that in a related Amended Originating Application (Action No. 2401 16858), which also involved the Plaintiffs along with Olufemi Jaiyesimi and Olufemi Jaiyesimi Professional Corporation. However, the Court noted that while the claims referred to the same general period of events, the causes of action and the parties involved were not identical.

Specifically, the Originating Application pursued relief for alleged oppression or wrongdoing under the Alberta Business Corporations Act, RSA 2000, c B-9, and/or the Canada Business Corporations Act, RSC 1985, c C-44. By contrast, the Statement of Claim alleged a breach of contract and sought remedies distinct from those in the earlier proceeding.

The Court concluded that the Statement of Claim was not, on its face, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. It emphasized that the two sets of proceedings were legally distinct and that there was no indication of duplicative or improper pleadings. Accordingly, Civil Practice Note 7 did not apply.

No monetary amounts, costs, or damages were granted or ordered. The Court did not decide on the merits of the claim but allowed the matter to proceed. The Plaintiffs did not appear in this proceeding, while the Defendants were represented by Ugo Ukpabi through written submission. No party was declared successful.