Court rules in favor of Al Amoudi in Bole Tower dispute

In the ongoing legal saga between billionaire Sheikh Mohamed Ali Al Amoudi and his ex-partner and close friend Abinet Gebremeskel, a judge has ruled in the tycoon’s favor in relation to the Bole Tower PLC case.
The plaintiff, Abinet, filed a charge with the Federal First Instant Court Commercial and Investment Bench in September 2021. The complaint demanded that Al Amoudi, the defendant, resign from the firm or that it be dissolved, as Abinet owns forty percent of the company that was founded approximately 22 years ago.
In his filing, Abinet stated that he disagrees with the defendant, who has filed multiple charges in different benches, and that he played several important roles in the company’s expansion while serving as general manager.
He also added that he has personally invested in order to complete projects. He asserted that the defendant ought to vacate the share company or the court ought to rule that the firm must dissolve in accordance with the recognized legal process in the nation.
The defendant contended that dissolving the company would harm the national interest and also argued that his exclusion from ownership should not be enforced.
Instead of dissolving the company, he contended, the plaintiff should be excluded from the company or sell his ownership position.
Additionally, Al Amoudi filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff, alleging that Abinet was responsible for the disappearance of company legal documents, such as the memorandum of association, from the local government administration and for the unauthorized transfer of ownership of a land parcel and other properties at the investment site.
In his charge sheet, the defendant also said that the plaintiff obtained a 425 million birr loan from Dashen Bank in the company’s name, but that he misused it and transferred it to himself, his friends, and family, harming the company’s interests.
Additionally, he stated that the plaintiff was supposed to incorporate the 2,000 square meter parcel of land as business property, as per the company’s memorandum of association, but he did not.
He maintained that the plaintiff had obtained a title deed in his own name in opposition to the terms of the company’s memorandum of formation.
He argued that the court should bar the plaintiff from ownership of the business by their decision.
The plaintiff, on his part, argued that, aside from the 2,000 square meters he claimed to be in accordance with the memorandum of association, he intended to include two plots of land of 3,383 square meters and 1,971 square meters that belong to him, and that there is no legal basis to include them in the company.
The court that convened on Monday, April 8, rendered a ruling that rejected the plaintiff’s demand that the defendant quit the firm or dissolve it.It reminded me of the recent ruling by the Federal High Court that stated Abient personally did not own the properties, but rather the Share Company did. In regards to the defendant’s expulsion from the share company, the First Instant Court concluded that the plaintiff had not provided a reasonable explanation and therefore the defendant would remain a shareholder in Bole Tower plc.
The plaintiff, who served as general manager of the firm for 20 years, was accused by the defendant of improperly leading the business, not paying his share payment as stated in the company’s memorandum of association, dishonestly altering the title document, and committing other unlawful acts.
Furthermore, the defendant requested that the plaintiff be prohibited from owning any shares in the business. The court made a final decision, ordering the plaintiff to leave the share company and allowing the defendant (Al Amoudi) to remain the company’s owner, taking into account the verdict of the Federal Higher Court and the decision of the First Instant Court in other related cases.
Very recently, the First Instant Court has issued a verdict on Abinet’s removal from the position of general manager at the company.
The court, which dismissed the defendant’s argument that Abinet had not fulfilled his commitment to contribute shares, also stated that Abient would receive his entire interest from the company upon his departure.