From Godwin Tsa, Abuja
Banks across board have complied with the ruling of Justice Deinde Dipeolu of the Federal High Court delivered on January 29, 2025, lifting the Mareva injunction placed on Glibal Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL), its directors and shareholders.
The compliance by the banks came on the heels of misleading statements by First Bank of Nigeria Plc.
A statement by the management of GHL said that First Bank lawyers had maliciously and mischievously misinformed the public on the clear and unambiguous ruling by the learned Judge.
“This falsehood is the latest in a pattern of deceit and dishonesty from First Bank of Nigeria that has left the public shocked and disappointed that a supposedly first-rate financial institution in a constitutional democracy like Nigeria would go so low and consciously and wilfully disobey the law and continue to spread false information at will and without remorse.
GHL has thus been left to file multiple cases across borders seeking damages for defamation, libel and breach of contract.
It will be recalled that the Mareva injunction was secured by First Bank when they suppressed material information and failed to fully disclose a subsisting judgement of the same Federal High Court in Lagos,”.
GHL said it would “continue to seek justice worldwide against First Bank for breach of contract (by obtaining a benefit without complying with its obligations) after restating its financial statements with the critical support of GHL who are now asking the Courts to determine if First Bank’s Audited Accounts are correct in the face of non-compliance with conditions precedent for those restatements in 2021/2022 where their N306 billion loss became N151 billion profit as stated in their current Rights Issue,”.
The Lagos division of the Federal High Court had set aside a Mareva order that froze the assets of GHL and its directors.
Justice Dehinde Dipeolu, in his ruling agreed with counsel to the 2nd and 5th defendants; Abiodun Layonu, SAN and Olumide Aju, SAN, that the exparte injunction violated an existing order from a court of concurrent jurisdiction.
Justice Dipeolu held that the Mareva injunction should be set aside when compared to an earlier order issued by Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa in suit No. 1953.
The Court found that First Bank of Nigeria and FBNQuest Ltd, who sought the injunction, suppressed facts by not fully disclosing Justice Lewis-Allagaa’s order, making the Mareva injunction incompatible with the previous ruling.
The judge accused First Bank of deliberately “suppressing facts” to mislead the Court into granting the order against GHL.
Consequently, the court was left with no option but to lift the freezing order affecting GHL’s accounts and those of all other defendants. Justice Dipeolu held: “the plaintiffs failed to disclose that by the order of this court made on December 12, 2024 coram Allagaa J. in suit 1953 where they were restrained from taking any step whatsoever to enforce any security, receivables, instruments, finance documents or assets of the applicant arising from the facility agreement and amended and restatement agreements, pending the hearing and determination of the ongoing arbitration proceedings between the applicant and the 1st plaintiff including taking any steps to call in or demand the repayment of facilities which the 1st plaintiff had granted to the applicant pending the arbitration between the parties.
“It is settled law that the Court that makes an exparte order of interim injunction has the inherent power or jurisdiction in an appropriate case to vary, or discharge same. One of the major grounds on which the Court will set-aside, vary or discharge an order of interim injunction made exparte was if the orders or order was granted on a suppression or misrepresentation of material facts.
“In view of the above, I find therefore that there was no full and frank disclosure as it relates to the order of Allagaa J, by the plaintiff. “I have earlier on held that although, the interim order made by this Court on the December 30, 2024, are in relation to the subsequent facilities agreement between the 1st plaintiff and the 1st defendant and it does not extend to the receivables in the agreement of May 29, 2021, also the present suit on the force of it if placed side by side wide with FHC/CS/1953/2024 is not an abuse of process for the reasons given above, however, in view of the orders of Allagaa J, made on December 12, 2024, the Mareva order granted by this court on December 30, 2024, is hereby set aside, “ Justice Dipeolu held.
Also listed in the case is the founder and Chairman of the ThisDay/Arise Media Group, Nduka Obaigbena.
First Bank had approached the Court with an ex parte application against GHL and 15 other entities, even though there was already a ruling in place.
In response to the suit, GHL and other defendants urged the Court to discharge the order that froze their assets, arguing that the Court had been misled into granting it.
GHL contended that the order was obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment of material facts. The oil firm and the other applicants accused First Bank of misleading the Court to secure orders against them. They asserted that had all the relevant facts been presented to the trial judge, the order against them would not have been granted. The trial judge ultimately upheld GHL’s arguments and set aside the freezing order.
Meanwhile, GHL’s directors, also adversely affected by the ex parte freezing order, have initiated legal proceedings worldwide against First Bank, seeking $1 billion each in damages for defamation and wrongful freezing of their accounts. Additionally, GHL is filing a complaint with the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee against First Bank lawyers, Babajide Koku, SAN, and Victor Ogude, SAN, for unprofessional conduct.