*Ask court to lift asset-freezing order
*Dipeolu considers ruling
Wale Igbintade
Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs), Dr. Abiodun Layonu and Olumide Aju, who are counsels to General Hydrocarbon Limited (GHL), a Nigeria-based oil and gas services company and other parties in a suit against First Bank Holdings Plc, yesterday accused the bank of gross abuse of judicial process.
In the suit, GHL is seeking to vacate an order freezing its assets and those of its related entities pending the resolution of a $225.8 million dispute.
During proceedings, Layonu contended that the bank’s suit amounted to an abuse of court process, as it failed to disclose the earlier restraining order from Justice Allagoa, which barred further action on the loan recovery until arbitration was concluded.
He urged the court to take judicial notice of an earlier order by Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa, which had instructed First Bank not to take any action to recover funds under the facility agreement with GHL.
Layonu, argued that the dispute over the $225.8 million debt, which was already before Justice Allagoa and was set to go to arbitration, should not be subject to new court orders.
He stressed that the interim orders, sought by the plaintiffs and granted by the court, violated an existing court order from a court of concurrent jurisdiction.
The case originated from an ex-parte order granted by Justice Dipeolu on December 30, 2024, in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/2378/2024, filed by First Bank of Nigeria against GHL and 15 other entities.
This order restricted commercial banks from releasing or dealing with any assets or funds belonging to GHL or its subsidiaries.
This was after a Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division had restrained the bank from taking any steps to enforce any security, receivables, instruments or finance documents or assets of GHL.
“An order is granted, restraining the Respond either by itself or acting through its servants, agents assigns, privies affiliates howsoever described, including any person claiming under its authority from making any calls or demands or taking any steps whatsoever to enforce any security receivables, instrument, finance documents or assets of the Applicant which have been charged as security for the facility agreements in respect of the Applicant’s operation of OML 120.
“(This) include, but not limited to the said letter, and the amended and restatement agreements between the Applicant and the Respondent pending the hearing and determination of the arbitration proceedings between the Applicant and the Respondent brought pursuant to Clause 12 (c) of the Agreement between the Applicant and the Respondent dated 29th May, 2021,” the court document had stated.
Other respondents in the suit against First Bank included GHL 121 Ltd, Aimonte Nigeria Limited, Calidin Global Resources Limited, CESL Oyo Production BBC Limited (owner of FPSO Tamara Tokoni), CESL Oyo Production O&M Limited, VITOL SA, Mercuria Energy Trading SA, Trafigura PTE Limited, Glencore Energy UK Limited, Schlumberger Nigeria Limited, Schlumberger Overseas SA, and Baker Hughes Oilfield Services.
Speaking further, Layonu requested the court to set aside the Mareva Injunction, claiming it was granted based on misleading information and had caused significant financial harm to GHL.
He also asked the court to vacate the interim orders made on December 30, 2024, along with any other orders the court deemed necessary.
In GHL’s Motion on Notice, brought under the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules and Section 36(1) of the Constitution, GHL argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter and grant the Mareva orders, as they contradicted the earlier decision of Justice Allagoa in Suit No. FHC/I/CS/1953/2024, where the bank was restrained from enforcing any security under the facility agreement pending arbitration.
Layonu further argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the interim Mareva injunction because the subject matter was not within the court’s enumerated jurisdiction during the Christmas vacation.
He contended that the court’s decision would have been different had the plaintiffs disclosed material facts, particularly the existence of Justice Allagoa’s orders and the ongoing arbitration.
Addressing the court, Aju, who represented the 2nd to 5th applicants, accused First Bank of fraudulent misrepresentation and failure to disclose critical facts.
He reminded the court that the arbitration proceedings were ongoing and referenced the December 12, 2024 order from Justice Allagoa, which required both parties to pursue arbitration.
Aju emphasised that the court would not have granted the ex parte order had First Bank disclosed the earlier order from Justice Allagoa.
He urged the court to vacate the ex Mareva Injunction in the interest of justice.
In response, Victor Ogude SAN, counsel for First Bank, defended the Mareva injunction, asserting that the bank did not deceive the court and had provided all relevant facts in its affidavit.
Ogude clarified that the parties involved in Justice Lewis-Allagoa’s case were different from those in the current suit, arguing that nothing in the earlier order prevented First Bank from pursuing the matter under different agreements.
After considering the arguments, Justice Dehinde Dipeolu reserved judgment for a later date, which would be communicated to both parties.
Following the proceedings, Justice Dipeolu invited lead counsel for all parties into his chambers, though none of the lawyers disclosed the contents of their discussions with the judge.
