*Foreign lenders and major banks join fight to overturn sweeping court order
*NJC, court suspends proceedings pending petition from presiding judge
Sunday Ehigiator
Fresh controversy is brewing over a far-reaching order by Justice Dehinde Dipeor of the Federal High Court of Lagos freezing the bank accounts, shares and assets of Nesoil Limited and its affiliates in a high-stakes debt recovery case involving unconfirmed claims of over $1.01 billion and 430 billion naira.
In a judgment dated October 15, 2025 on an ex-parte motion filed on October 20, Justice Dipeolu issued a comprehensive order prohibiting Nestoil Limited, Neconde Energy Limited and other Nestoil affiliates from operating bank accounts or dealing with funds, shares or assets held by financial institutions in Nigeria.
Nekonde Energy Limited, which is at the center of the storm, has condemned its inclusion in the Mareva and Receivership Orders obtained by FBN Quest Merchant Bank Limited and First Trustees Limited, calling the orders unjust, oppressive and a clear judicial overreach.
Meanwhile, Glencore Energy UK Limited, Fidelity Bank PLC, Mauritius Commercial Bank Limited and African Finance Corporation (AFC) (collectively referred to as the Senior Lenders) have filed a motion seeking to be joined as defendants to overturn the broad ex parte court order.
The senior lenders, through their lawyer, Olufemi Oyewole (SAN), asked the court to set aside or vary the ex parte order dated October 22, 2025, alleging that it threatened their security interest in Nekonde’s assets and business.
They alleged that the plaintiffs did not disclose in their affidavit the existence of a senior secured medium-term facility agreement dated April 27, 2016, under which Nekonde obtained a $640 million syndicated loan.
They added that the invoice dated December 8, 2022, relied upon by the plaintiffs in obtaining the ex parte order, was registered only against Nestoil Limited and not against Neconde Energy Limited, and as such, it was defective and unenforceable against Neconde.
They cited Article 3.4 of the complaint, which stated that FBNQuest’s prosecution “shall be subordinated and subject in all aspects to the prosecution and mandate constituted by the Neconde Senior Security Document.”
They therefore asked the court to revoke or modify the interim order or to restrain further interference with Nekonde’s assets pending the determination of the merits of the case.
They argued that the interim order would prevent Nekonde from fulfilling its obligations to senior lenders, potentially causing a default and potentially leading to insolvency proceedings with very devastating consequences.
When the case came up on Friday, November 7, 2025, Justice Dipeor disclosed that he had received a petition addressed to the Chief Justice of the Federal High Court regarding the disposal of this case and related cases.
He then suspended further proceedings pending instructions from the presiding judge on whether to proceed or resign.
The petition accused the judges in two related cases of judicial misconduct and reckless issuance of broad ex parte orders. Aries Energy v. Neconde Energy & Ors (FHC/L/CP/1439/2025).
The appellants argued that Judge Dipeol granted the freezing and receivership order without ascertaining the ownership of several properties, including Nestoil Tower, which allegedly belonged to third parties who owed no debts to the appellants.
They also accused him of granting a freezing and receivership order against Nekonde without any basis and authorizing the Nigerian Navy and the Department of State Services (DSS) to assist the receiver in enforcing civil orders and selling crude oil from OML 42. They argued that this action violated the protective nature of the preliminary injunction.
They called on the National Judicial Council to investigate the matter and the Chief Justice of the Federal High Court to reassign all related cases to another judge in order to preserve public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.
Mr Nekonde also filed proceedings praying for the court to lift the ex parte order.
The suit, Suit No. FHC/CP/1439/2025, Aries Energy and Petroleum Company Limited v. Nekonde Energy Limited, Gobowen Exploration and Production Limited, Dr. Ernest Azdyar and Bridge H&T Limited, was commenced even though it was undergoing liquidation proceedings at the Federal High Court in Lagos, alleging that the suit was jurisdictionally incompetent.
Our firm submitted that pursuant to the provisions of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020 (CAMA), once a company is wound up by a court, any disposition of its assets, including any activity, transfer of shares, or change in membership status after the commencement of winding up, becomes null and void unless otherwise ordered by the court.
They further contended that any seizure, attachment, attachment or execution against the property of a company in liquidation is likewise void unless by order of the court.
Nekonde, a major independent oil producer belonging to OML 42, maintained that it owed no debt to the plaintiffs and had no involvement in the syndicated loan transactions that formed the basis of the lawsuit.
The company’s lawyers argued that its inclusion amounted to an unreasonable interference with the rights of third parties and effectively halted oil production of more than 40,000 barrels per day.
They argued that the ex-parte order was overly broad and was issued without jurisdiction, especially since Mr Nekonde is already the subject of ongoing liquidation proceedings in the same Federal High Court.
Other defendants, Nestoil and its affiliates, also filed a motion to set aside the order, arguing that it was unconstitutional and obtained by concealing material facts.
They charged that the plaintiffs failed to provide full and frank disclosure before securing the ex parte order, thereby misleading the court into granting an unusually broad order without hearing from the affected parties.
Lawyers said the plaintiffs’ actions were “extremely hasty and desperate” and contrary to established legal principles that provide for unilateral relief that is temporary and protective.
In particular, it argued that because the alleged loans were restructured pursuant to a common terms agreement (CTA) signed in December 2022, there was no urgency to justify freezing the accounts or seizing the assets.
They say the lawsuit is premature and violates the terms of the settlement, as CTA has delayed the repayment deadline by more than 10 years from December 2021.
Defendants further accused FBNQuest of failing to provide financial statements for more than three years despite repeated written requests, and argued that only a forensic reconciliation could determine the true financial situation.
They contended that the plaintiffs’ claims were inflated with illegal and excessive charges, and argued that a sweeping order was unnecessary because Nesuoil Towers, a major landmark on Akin Adesola Street, Victoria Island, is an immovable and secure asset.
They also challenged the appointment of a receiver/manager by the petitioners, arguing that the appointee was not registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) as required by CAMA 2020.
The companies warned that maintaining the order would cripple their operations, freeze the personal accounts of their directors, and cause catastrophic losses to Nekonde’s oil production, which would also affect the federal government’s crude oil export revenues.
Meanwhile, industry insiders warned that if the continuing legal dispute is not resolved quickly, it could disrupt OML 42’s oil production (which produced more than 250,000 barrels per day in the 1970s) and further undermine investor confidence in Nigeria’s domestic oil sector.
