A federal High Court presided over by Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako, has summoned? the Managing Director of the Federal Airport Authority of Nigeria (FAAN), George Uriesi? to appear before it next week Wednesday,? April 4, 2012 over a? contempt? charge.

Justice Murtala-Nyako made the summon at? the hearing of? a? contempt charge? instituted? by Maevis, a? charge against FAAN, over? the court’s earlier order? made? on? September 24, 2010, for? parties to maintain the? res (reason of the suit) on the former’s airports’ concession contract.

Maevis is the concessionaire to FAAN on the provision of the Airport Operations Management System (AOMS) platform in four international airports in Lagos, Abuja, Kano and Port-Harcourt.

The FAAN/ Maevis Airport Operations Management System (AOMS) projects include theacquisition, installation, operation and management of world class Integrated Airport Operations Database (AODB), Common Use Terminal Equipment (CUTE), Computer Based Departure Control System Platform, Common Use Self Service (CUSS) Kiosk, Check-in desk and a fully automated Airport Pricing and Billing System (PBS).

At the resumed hearing of the matter on Wednesday, the lead counsel to Maevis, Professor Yemi Osinbajo (SAN) had informed the court that FAAN “has engaged in serious and egregious actions which undermine the? authority of the court, culminating in the displacement of Maevis and its staff from their offices at the Murtala Muhammed Airport, Lagos and Nnamdi Azikwe Aiport, Abuja”.

This act, Prof Osinbanjo argued was done despite the? fact? that FAAN’s counsel, Mr. Kola Awodein (SAN) had? thrice in the hearing of the case on May 19, 2011 given an undertaking on behalf of his client that FAAN would not infract upon the judge’s ruling to maintain the res.

Professor Osinabjo? asserted? that Maevis' displacement was consequent upon a notice of contempt before the court, following FAAN’s earlier correspondence to all airlines to stop using the AOMS platform.

He submitted that FAAN’s action was a gross violation of and a disregard for this ruling.

But Awodein in his response informed the Court of FAAN’s pending Preliminary Objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the committal application filed by FAAN.

He argued that the Preliminary Objection ought to be taken, prior to the hearing of the committal application.