First Bank Urges Court Not To Unfreeze GHL Accounts
As the controversies over the $225.8 million owed First Bank of Nigeria Limited by General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL) rage on, the lender has urged the Federal High Court, Lagos to uphold an order freezing the assets and accounts of the oil and gas company and its related entities pending the outcome of a substantive suit aimed at recovering the loan.
The bank in the application by its lawyer, Victor Ogude, contended the loan was obtained through the concealment of important facts. Ogude’s application was a response to an application filed by GHL seeking to lift the order freezing its accounts.
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 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 subjected themselves to 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 are 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 are 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.
After considering the arguments presented, the judge reserved the ruling for a later date, which will be communicated to both parties.