A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has vacated an exparte Mareva Injunction freezing the assets of General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL) in connection with a disputed $225.8 million debt.

The presiding judge, Justice Deinde Dipeolu vacated the order after agreeing with GHL counsel that the injunction violated an existing order of a court of concurrent jurisdiction.

In discharging the order, Justice Dipeolu held that while the current suit was not an abuse of court process when compared to Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1953/2024, the Mareva Order granted on December 30, 2024, must be set aside due to conflicting orders from Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa also of the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division.

The earlier order, issued by Justice Lewis-Allagoa on December 12, 2024, had restrained First Bank Plc from taking further action to recover the loan until arbitration proceedings between the parties had been concluded.

The case concerns a loan dispute between First Bank of Nigeria Limited and GHL, along with several other related entities including GHL 121 Limited, Aimonte Nigeria Limited, and Schlumberger Nigeria Limited.

The later court injunction had restricted all commercial banks from dealing with the assets or funds belonging to GHL and its affiliates.

Challenging the Mareva Injunction, GHL’s counsel, Dr. Abiodun Layonu, SAN argued that the injunction was an abuse of court process, claiming that First Bank had failed to disclose to court of the previous order by Justice Lewis-Allagoa which had restrained the bank from further action. He contended that the Mareva order had caused significant financial harm to GHL.

In response, counsel for First Bank of Nigeria Plc, Mr. Victor Ogude, SAN, argued that the bank had not misled the court and had provided all relevant facts.

He emphasized that the parties in the earlier case before Justice Lewis-Allagoa were different, and the existing order did not preclude First Bank from pursuing the new suit under separate agreements.

Ruling on GHL’s application, Justice Dipeolu held that First Bank had failed to fully disclose the earlier order, making the Mareva Injunction incompatible with Justice Lewis-Allagoa’s previous ruling.

The court acknowledged that while the current suit was not an abuse of process, it had to respect the prior orders in place.

Justice Dipeolu held: “I have carefully read through all that is contained in the Originating Summons in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/1953/24 and the Interim Orders of Hon. Justice Allagoa J. dated the 12th of December, 2024. It appears to me that the Interim Orders made by Hon. Justice Allagoa J. revolves around the arbitration proceedings between the 1st Defendant and the 1st Plaintiff in this case, which arbitration proceedings is pursuant to Clause 12 (c) of the Agreement between the 1st Defendant and the 1st Plaintiff dated the 29th of May, 2021. This position is reflected in all the Interim Orders granted on 12th of December, 2024.

“Although the Interim Orders made by this Court on the 30th of December, 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 29th of May, 2021, also, the present suit on the face of it, if placed side by side with FHC/L/CS/1953/2024, is not an abuse of process for the reasons given above. However, in view of the Orders of Allagoa J. made on the 12th of December, 2024, the Mareva order granted by this Court on 30th December, is hereby set aside.

“Based on all my findings above, I hold that the 1st defendant/applicant Motion on Notice dated January 13, 2025 succeeds. The Mareva Order of 30th December, 2024 is hereby set aside.”

Though the ruling emphasized the court’s jurisdiction to grant the initial Mareva order, it concluded that the injunction could not stand in light of conflicting orders.

The court also ruled that the 2nd to 5th defendants, who were affected by the Mareva orders, had the right to seek the dismissal of the suit. Justice Dipeolu further held that the 2nd to 5th defendants are necessary parties and are affected by the interim Mareva orders made by the court.

“It beats this Court, why the same Plaintiffs who have brought the 2nd to 5th defendants to court in their involvement in the subject matter of this suit are the same plaintiffs challenging the 2nd to 5th defendants from seeking to apply to dismiss or strike out this suit, knowing fully well that the Mareva Interim Orders of this Court dated 30th December, 2024 affected the 2nd to 5th defendants/Applicants. Being affected by the Orders of this Court, I hold that the 2nd to 5th Defendants/Applicants are entitled to seek this Court to strike out or dismiss this suit,” the court held.

Justice Dipeolu adjourned the Matter to February 19, 2025, for further proceedings.

To join our CITY LAWYER Channel on WhatsApp, click here

To join our Telegram platform, click here 

COPYRIGHT 2022 CITY LAWYER. Please send emails to citylawyermag@gmail.com. Join us on Facebook at https://web.facebook.com/City-Lawyer-Magazine-434937936684320 and on “X” (TWITTER) at https://twitter.com/CityLawyerMag. To ADVERTISE in CITY LAWYER or for Special Features, please email citylawyermag@gmail.com or call 08138380083.

All materials available on this Website are protected by copyright, trade mark and other proprietary and intellectual property laws. You may not use any of our intellectual property rights without our express written consent or attribution to www.citylawyermag.com. However, you are permitted to print or save to your individual PC, tablet or storage extracts from this Website for your own personal non-commercial use.