•Foreign lenders, major banks join fight to overturn sweeping court orders

• Court halts proceedings amid NJC, Chief Judge petitions

Fresh controversy has erupted over the far-reaching orders granted by Justice Dehinde Dipeolu of the Federal High Court, Lagos, which froze the bank accounts, shares, and assets of Nestoil Limited and its affiliates in a high-stakes debt recovery suit involving unverified claims exceeding $1.01 billion and N430 billion.

In a ruling on an ex parte motion dated October 15, 2025, and filed on October 20, Justice Dipeolu issued sweeping orders restraining Nestoil Limited, Neconde Energy Limited, and other Nestoil affiliates from operating their bank accounts or dealing with funds, shares, or assets held in any Nigerian financial institution.

At the centre of the storm is Neconde Energy Limited, which has faulted its inclusion in the Mareva and receivership orders obtained by FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited and First Trustees Limited, describing the orders as wrongful, oppressive, and a clear case of judicial overreach.

Meanwhile, Glencore Energy UK Limited, Fidelity Bank Plc, Mauritius Commercial Bank Limited, and the Africa Finance Corporation (AFC) — collectively described as Senior Lenders – have filed motions seeking to be joined as defendants to overturn the sweeping ex parte court orders.

Through their counsel, Olufemi Oyewole (SAN), the Senior Lenders asked the Court to set aside or vary the ex parte orders of October 22, 2025, which they said threaten their security interests in Neconde’s assets and operations.

They argued that the plaintiffs failed to disclose in their affidavit the existence of the Senior Secured Medium-Term Facility Agreement dated April 27, 2016, under which Neconde obtained a $640 million syndicated loan.

They added that the Deed of Charge dated December 8, 2022, relied upon by the plaintiffs in obtaining the ex parte orders, was registered against Nestoil Limited only and not against Neconde Energy Limited, rendering it defective and unenforceable against Neconde.

Citing Clause 3.4 of the Deed of Charge, they noted that FBNQuest’s charge “shall rank in all aspects subordinate and subject to the charges and assignments constituted by the Neconde Senior Security Documents.”

They therefore urged the Court to vacate or vary the interim orders or restrain further interference with Neconde’s assets pending determination of the substantive suit.

They asserted that the interim orders have made it impossible for Neconde to service its obligations to the Senior Lenders, potentially triggering events of default that could lead to insolvency actions with highly disruptive consequences.

When the case came up on Friday November 7, 2025, Justice Dipeolu revealed that he had received the petition sent to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court concerning his handling of the case and related cases.

He subsequently suspended further proceedings pending the Chief Judge’s directive on whether he should continue or recuse himself.

The petitions accused the judge of judicial misconduct and reckless issuance of sweeping ex parte Mareva orders in two related cases — FBNQuest Merchant Bank & Anor v. Nestoil Ltd & Ors (FHC/L/CS/2127/2025); Aries Energy v. Neconde Energy & Ors (FHC/L/CP/1439/2025).

The petitioners alleged that Justice Dipeolu granted freezing and receivership orders without verifying ownership of several properties, including Nestoil Tower, which allegedly belong to third parties not indebted to the plaintiffs.

They also accused him of granting freezing and receivership orders against Neconde without any basis and authorising the Nigerian Navy and Department of State Services (DSS) to assist a receiver in enforcing civil orders and selling crude oil from OML 42 — actions they said contravened the preservative nature of interim injunctions.

They urged the National Judicial Council to investigate the matter and the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to reassign all related cases to another judge to preserve public confidence in judicial impartiality.

Neconde has also filed processes in court praying the Court to discharge the ex parte orders.

It argued that the instant suit is jurisdictionally incompetent, having been commenced against it despite being under winding-up proceedings before the Federal High Court, Lagos, in Suit No. FHC/CP/1439/2025: Aries Energy & Petroleum Company Limited v. Neconde Energy Limited, Gobowen Exploration and Production Limited, Dr. Ernest Azudialu, and Bridge H&T Limited.

The firm submitted that by the provisions of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020, once a company is being wound up by the Court, any disposition of its property, including things in action, transfer of shares, or alteration of members’ status after the commencement of the winding-up, shall be void unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

They further contended that any attachment, sequestration, distress, or execution enforced against the estate of a company in liquidation shall equally be null and void except by the Court’s order.

Neconde, a major independent oil producer in OML 42, maintained that it is neither indebted to the plaintiffs nor privy to the syndicated loan transaction forming the basis of the suit.

The company’s lawyers argued that its inclusion amounted to wrongful interference with third-party rights and had effectively halted its daily crude oil production of over 40,000 barrels.

They contended that the ex parte orders were excessively broad and issued without jurisdiction, particularly since Neconde is already the subject of ongoing winding-up proceedings before the same Federal High Court.

The other defendants, Nestoil and its affiliates, have also filed a motion seeking to vacate the orders, describing them as unconstitutional and obtained through suppression of material facts.

They accused the plaintiffs of failing to make full and frank disclosure before securing the ex parte orders, thereby misleading the court into granting extraordinary far-reaching orders without hearing from the affected parties.

According to their counsel, the plaintiffs’ actions were “profoundly hasty and desperate,” contrary to established legal principles governing ex parte reliefs, which are intended to be temporary and preservative.

They argued that no urgency existed to justify freezing accounts or seizing assets, especially since the alleged loans had been restructured under a Common Terms Agreement (CTA) executed in December 2022.

The CTA, they said, rescheduled repayments over ten years from December 2021, making the present suit premature and in breach of its reconciliation clause.

The defendants further accused FBNQuest of failing to provide statements of account for over three years despite repeated written requests, insisting that only a forensic reconciliation could determine the true financial position.

They alleged that the plaintiffs’ claims were inflated with illegal and excessive charges and argued that Nestoil Towers, a major landmark on Akin Adesola Street, Victoria Island, is an immovable and secure property, making the drastic order unnecessary.

They also challenged the appointment of a receiver/manager by the plaintiffs, claiming the appointee was not registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) as required under CAMA 2020.

The companies warned that maintaining the orders would paralyse operations, freeze directors’ personal accounts, and inflict devastating losses on Neconde’s oil production — losses that would also affect the Federal Government’s revenue from crude oil exports.

Meanwhile, industry sources warned that the continuing legal tussle, if not promptly resolved, could disrupt oil production in OML 42 — once producing over 250,000 barrels per day in the 1970s — and further erode investor confidence in Nigeria’s indigenous oil sector.