admin
The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has set aside an ex-parte order freezing the assets and accounts of a Nigerian oil and gas services company, General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL), in connection with a disputed $225.8 million loan.
In a judgment which lasted about three hours, Justice Deinde Dipeolu, first determined whether his court had the jurisdiction to entertain the matter during the Christmas Vacation of 2024.
The court held that banking and oil sector activities are chief drivers of the economy and since the instant case centered on loan facilities running into millions of dollars advanced to General Hydrocarbons Ltd, it is necessary for the court to prioritize matters that promote financial responsibility and stability which borders on the financial economy of the nation.
Justice Dipeolu further held that the assets involved in the suit are oil assets and the amount of money involved makes it a matter of urgent national interest which the court had the jurisdiction to entertain during vacation period.
The second issue which the court dealt with was whether the interim orders it granted on December 30th, 2024, were premised on misrepresentation and concealment of material facts.
Recall that Justice Dipeolu had on December 30th, 2024, granted among other things an order of interim Mareva order restraining all commercial banks in Nigeria from releasing funds or handling assets belonging to the General Hydrocarbons Limited and officials of the firm including media mogul, Nduka Obaigbena.
General Hydrocarbons in seeking to discharge this order had argued that First Bank failed to disclose to Justice Dipeolu that his brother judge, Justice Lewis Allagoa had on Dec. 12, 2024 restrained the bank from any steps to enforce any security or assets of the oil company pending the hearing and determination of ongoing arbitration proceedings between the parties.
After a careful perusal of Justice Allagoa’s order, the court held that there was no full and frank disclosure of the order by First Bank as the plaintiffs had merely disclosed that there is in existence preservative orders of court without attaching same to its motion exparte triggering the interim orders of the instant court.
Justices Dipeolu also held that the current suit is not an abuse of court process as the parties before him and his brother judge, Justice Allagoa are different just as the cause of action are also different even though the parties are engaged in the same transaction.
The court held, “that the interim orders made by Allagoa J. revolved around the arbitration proceedings between General Hydrocarbons and First Bank…”on the other hand, the bank’s suit before the instant court borders on the credit facilities between the two parties.
“From the foregoing therefore, First Bank has been restrained from making any calls or demands or taking any steps whatsoever in respect of General Hydrocarbon’s operation of OML 120 pending the hearing and determination of the of the arbitration proceedings between the applicant and the respondent”.
“Although the interim orders made by this court on the 30th of Dec, 2024 are in relation to the subsequent facilities agreement between the Ist Plaintiff and Ist Defendant and it does not extend to to the receivables in the agreement of 29th of May, 2022, also the present suit on the face of it if placed side by side with FHC/L/CS/I1953/2024 (the case before Alaggoa J.), is not an abuse of process, however in view of the orders of Allagoa J. made on the 12th of Dec., 2024, the Mareva order granted by this court on Dec. 30, 2024, is hereby set aside.
In the application filed by Nduka Obaigbena and 4 other persons listed as officials of General Hydrocarbons, the defendants are seeking an order of the court striking out the suit for lack of jurisdiction and for being in gross abuse of court process or in the alternative for an order setting aside the interim Marva orders against the 2nd – 5th respondents.
Justice Dipeolu held that being affected by the Dec. 30, 2024 Mareva Interim orders of the court, the 5 defendants are at liberty to raise the issue of jurisdiction of the court at any time before judgment.
The court subsequently adjourned till Feb.19, for further proceedings in the matter.
