The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has not discharged six interim injunctions issued against General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL) in relation to banking relationship with First Bank of Nigeria Plc, says the bank’s counsel.
Justice Dipeolu J. had, on December 30, last year, issued eight interim injunctions against GHL, Prince Nduka Obaigbena and other directors of the company, including orders restraining all commercial banks from dealing with the company’s assets up to the claimed debt amount as well as order preventing release of funds that could be due to the company, its directors or associated parties, among others.
According to a counsel to First Bank, the court only lifted two Mareva orders, revealing that orders 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 were not discharged or set aside and remain valid.
He revealed that order 6 subsists, which restrained “the 1st – 4th defendants, agents, servants, officers, privies, subsidiaries, sister companies or any other person natural or artificial howsoever called under the control of the 1st – 4th defendants from transferring or otherwise dealing with any and all of the monies standing to the credit of the 1st – 4th defendants in any account whatsoever maintained by the 1st – 4th defendants with any of the aforementioned banks wherever situate up to the amount of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s claim of the total sum of US$225,802,379.69, being the indebtedness on the 1st defendant’s account with the 1stPlaintiff/Applicant as of 30th September, 2024, in respect of the loan facilities granted to the 1st defendant by the 1st Plaintiff/Applicant, pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction.”
The counsel said that the court did not also lift interim order 7, “mandating all the commercial banks in Nigeria to wit: Guaranty Trust Bank Limited, Access Bank Plc, Citibank Nigeria Limited, Carbon Bank, Ecobank Nigeria Plc, Fidelity Bank Plc, First Bank of Nigeria Limited, First City Monument Bank Plc, Flutter Wave, Globus Bank, Heritage Bank Limited, Jaiz Bank, Keystone Bank Limited, Opay Digital Services Limited, Palmpay Limited, Paystack Payments Limited, Piggyvest, Momo Payment Services Limited, Polaris Bank Limited, Providus Bank, Stanbic IBTC Bank Nigeria Limited, Standard Chartered Bank, Sterling Bank Plc, Suntrust Bank Limited, Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, United Bank for Africa Plc, Unity Bank Plc, Wema Bank Plc, Zenith Bank Plc, and all other financial institutions operating in Nigeria to file and serve on the Plaintiffs/Applicant solicitors within seven (7) days of serving this court order on them, an affidavit disclosing the sum standing to the 1st– 4th Defendants’ credit with a duly certified statement of accounts of the 1st– 4th Defendants/Respondents in their respective custody from the date of its opening till the date this order is served on the bank(s).”
He also stated that the judge failed to lift orders 8, “mandating the 8th– 13th Defendants to file and serve on the Plaintiffs/Applicants a statement disclosing the quantum of products lifted from the 8th Defendant or OML 120 since the commencement of production in OML 120.”
According to him, still subsisting is interim injunction order 9 “restraining the 8th to 16th Defendants and any other third parties from dealing with any assets and receivables related or connected with OML 120 without depositing the proceeds thereof to the 1st Defendant’s account in the 1st Plaintiff bank, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction.”
The counsel said that the court did not discharge interim order 10 “restraining the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Defendants, whether by themselves, members, shareholders, agents, servants, proxies, allies, from transferring and/or dissipating, diminishing or dealing with any interest in the 1st Defendant’s assets, including but not limited to crude stock, insurance policies, all forms of stock of shares, all forms of receivables and contracts, which have been pledged as securities for the loan facilities granted by the 1st Plaintiff to the 1st Defendant, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction.”
He also said that not discharged is interim injunction 11, “restraining the 2nd– 4th Defendants, being directors of the 1st Defendant, whether by themselves, agents, servants, proxies, allies, from transferring and/or dissipating any interest in their assets wherever located in Nigeria, movable or immovable, pending the determination of the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction.”
The First Bank counsel also stated: “For the avoidance of doubt, the 1st– 4th Defendants (GHL and its directors) are still restrained from dealing with and/or dissipating monies in their respective accounts and assets connected to the subject matter of the suit.
“The court ruled that the suit filed by FBN before Dipeolu J did not amount to an abuse of court process, as the cause of action and the parties are different from the cause of action and parties in the proceedings that were before Allagoa J.
“For the above reason, the court was of the view that the suit filed by FBN was properly constituted and dismissed the prayers of the 1st– 5th Defendants urging the court to strike out/dismiss the suit for being an abuse of court process.
“With respect to GHL’s contention that FBN suppressed and/or concealed the preservative orders made by Allagoa J., the court also held that FBN disclosed the existence of the preservative orders of Allagoa J. in paragraph 61 of their affidavit, save that the court order was not attached.
“On the Mareva order, the court was of the view that even though First Bank disclosed the existence of the preservative orders obtained from Allagoa J., he would nonetheless discharge the Mareva order because of the orders of Allagoa J.”