A Federal High Court in Lagos has set aside an ex parte Mareva Injunction that froze the assets of General Hydrocarbons Limited, GHL, in connection with a disputed $225.8 million lawsuit.
The ruling, delivered by Justice Deinde Dipeolu on Wednesday, found that the injunction violated an existing order from a court of concurrent jurisdiction.
Justice Dipeolu held that, while the current suit was not an abuse of court process when compared to Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1953/2024, the Mareva Order granted on December 30, 2024, must be set aside due to conflicting orders from Justice Allagoa.
First Bank of Nigeria had asked the court not to lift the order, but GHL prayed the court to discharge the order, arguing that it was obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation and the concealment of material facts at the time the order was obtained.
The bank made the application through its lawyer, Victor Ogude, while responding to an application filed by GHL seeking to lift the order, which it contended was obtained through the concealment of important facts.
Justice Dipeolu had on December 30, 2024, granted an ex-parte order restricting all commercial banks from releasing or dealing with any assets or monies belonging to General Hydrocarbons Limited, its agents, subsidiaries, or sister companies up to the amount claimed by the plaintiffs.
The judge had also issued a preliminary injunction that bars Nduka Obaigbena, Efe Damilola Obaigbena, and Olabisi Eka Obaigbena, directors of General Hydrocarbons Limited, from transferring or dissipating any of their assets located in Nigeria, whether movable or immovable until the court decides on the Motion on Notice for an interlocutory injunction.
Other respondents in the suit include 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, and VITOL SA.
Other respondents are Mercuria Energy Trading SA, Trafigura PTE Limited, Glencore Energy UK Limited, Schlumberger Nigeria Limited, Schlumberger Overseas SA, and Baker Hughes Oilfield Services.
While arguing for the lifting of the order, GHL’s attorney, Abiodun Layonu, claimed that the bank’s suit represents an abuse of the court process.
He also claimed that the bank had failed to disclose an earlier order granted by Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa that restrained the bank from taking further action to recover the loan until the parties nosubjected themselves to arbitration.
READ ALSO: Cherubim and Seraphim holds annual general conference Jan 30
Similarly, Mr. Olumide Aju, SAN representing the 2nd to 5th defendants in the matter also prayed the court to dismiss the entire the suit on grounds that it constitutes a gross abuse of court process or in the alternative discharge the Mareva orders against the 2nd to 5th defendants because it was obtained without a full and frank disclosure of the fact that there is an ongoing Arbitration between FBN and GHL in respect of the alleged indebtedness of GHL to FBN and that the same Federal High Court had earlier restrained FBN from filing any action or commencing any enforcement proceedings against GHL pending the outcome of that Arbitration.
Layonu urged the court to dismiss the Mareva Injunction, arguing that the court was misled into granting it and that it has caused significant financial harm to GHL.
In response, Ogude asserted that FirstBank did not deceive the court to obtain the order and emphasised that the bank provided all relevant facts in its affidavit supporting the suit.
He pointed out that the parties involved in Justice Lewis-Allagoa’s case and those before Justice Dipeolu were different and that nothing in the earlier order prevents First Bank from pursuing the current matter under different agreements.
He also noted that no law restricts their constitutional right to seek judicial redress for disputes.
The lawyers further stated that Nduka Obaigbena, Efe Damilola Obaigbena, and Olabisi Eka Obaigbena were named in the suit in their capacities as directors of GHL based on allegations of their involvement in the diversion of funds obtained by the oil company from the bank.
Ogude urged the court to dismiss GHL’s suit as incompetent and set a date for the hearing of the substantive suit.
In his ruling on Wednesday, Justice Dipeolu held that First Bank had failed to fully disclose the earlier order, making the Mareva Injunction incompatible with Justice Allagoa’s previous ruling.
The court acknowledged that while the current suit was not an abuse of process, it had to respect the prior orders in place.
READ ALSO: Oborevwori shines, wins Governor of the year 2024 Award
Justice Dipeolu stated, “The court held “I have carefully read through all that is contained in the Originating Summons in Suit No:FHC/L/CS/1953/24 and the Interim Orders of . Justice Allagoa J. dated December 12, 2024. It appears to me that the interim orders made by Justice Allagoa J., revolves around the arbitration proceedings between the 1st Defendant and the 1st plaintiff in this case, which arbitration proceedings is pursuant to Clause 12 (c) of the Agreement between the 1st defendant and the 1st plaintiff dated May 29, 2021. This position is reflected in all the interim orders granted on December 12, 2024.
“Although, the interim orders made by this court on December 30, 2024, are in relation to the subsequent facilities agreement between the 1st plaintiff and the 1st defendant and it does not extend to the receivables in the agreement of May 29, 2021, also, the present suit on the face of it if placed side by side with FHC/L/CS/1953/2024 is not an abuse of process for the reasons given above, however, in view of the Orders of Allagoa J. made on December 12, 2024, the Mareva order granted by this Court on December 30, is hereby set aside.
“Based on all my findings above, I hold that the 1st defendant/applicant motion on notice dated January 13, 2025, succeeds, the mareva order of December 30, 2024, is hereby set aside.”
The court also ruled that the 2nd to 5th defendants, who were affected by the Mareva orders, had the right to seek the dismissal of the suit.
Justice Dipeolu further held that the 2nd – 5th defendants were necessary parties and are affected by the interim mareva orders made by the court.
“It beats this court, why the same plaintiffs who have brought the 2nd to 5th defendants to court in their involvement in the subject matter of this suit are the same plaintiffs challenging the 2nd to 5th defendants from seeking to apply to dismiss or strike out this suit, knowing fully well that the mareva interim orders of this court dated December 30, 2024, affected the 2nd to 5th defendants/applicants. Being affected by the orders of this court, I hold that the 2nd to 5th defendants/applicants are entitled to seek this court to strike out or dismiss this suit,” the court held.
Justice Dipeolu adjourned the case till February 19, 2025, for further proceedings.
