Judge Reserves Ruling in Mareva Injunction Case Involving First Bank and General Hydrocarbons Limited

 

The High Court sitting before Justice Dipeolu on Friday, January 17, 2025, heard arguments on an application to set aside a Mareva injunction and other ex parte orders obtained by First Bank of Nigeria (FBN) and FBNQuest Limited against General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL) and others.

Dr. Abiodun Layonu (SAN), representing the defendants, contended that the plaintiffs failed to disclose critical facts, notably an earlier judgment by Justice Lewis-Allagoa of the Federal High Court. That judgment barred FBN from enforcing any security or assets linked to GHL's oil operations on OML 120 until arbitration proceedings are resolved. Dr. Layonu argued that this omission amounted to suppression of facts, misguiding the court into granting the Mareva injunction.

He emphasized that the plaintiffs improperly approached the court through an originating summons, asserting that the matter remains under arbitration and no judgment sum has been awarded. Furthermore, the plaintiffs, he said, had not proven their case, particularly concerning the disputed sums, before securing the injunction.

Dr. Layonu also highlighted that the contested asset, an oil block, cannot be dissipated or relocated, questioning the rationale for the Mareva order. He accused the plaintiffs of employing “strong-arm tactics,” including media campaigns, to frustrate GHL's operations.

Counsel for the second to fifth defendants, Mr. Olumide Aju (SAN), argued that his clients—directors of GHL—should not have been joined in the suit, as they were not parties to the contract in question nor had they issued personal guarantees. He described the suit as a case of forum shopping and abuse of court processes, urging the court to lift the Mareva order and strike out the case against his clients.

Additionally, Mr. Abiodun Anibaba, representing the sixth and seventh defendants, stated that his clients had no involvement in the transactions under dispute and questioned why they were included in the case. He pointed out procedural irregularities, arguing that an undertaking for damages, required before granting a Mareva injunction, was treated as an afterthought.

After hearing submissions from all parties, Justice Dipeolu reserved ruling on the application to set aside the Mareva injunction.