Court discharges Mareva injunction on Kam Industries’ banks, cites CBN as vital witness in Ecobank’s $9.5m loan dispute
By Onyewuchi Ojinnaka p
A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has discharged an earlier ex-parte order granted on October 7, 2024 and the consequent Mareva Injunction served on the banks of Kam Industries Nigeria Limited in respect of an alleged $9.5 million trade finance dispute with Ecobank Nigeria Plc.
The presiding judge, Justice Daniel Osiagor discharged the Mareva injunction on the grounds that the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), being a necessary party in resolving the dispute, was not joined in the suit.
Justice Osiagor held that both parties mutually acknowledged the critical role of the CBN in the transaction, and that any judgement rendered without its participation would be incomplete.
In the ruling delivered on July 25, 2025, the court also directed that the sum of N1.5 billion be ring-fenced inside the bank account of Kam Industries as security, pending the final determination of the substantive suit.
“On the agreement of the parties, the ex-parte order is hereby discharged, and the assets of the company are not to be dissipated or transacted with,” Justice Osiagor ruled.
“The sum of N1,500,000,000.00 is hereby ring-fenced in the Fidelity account of the defendants as security for the case.”
“The initial Mareva injunction which was granted on October 7, 2024, in favour of Ecobank under the Ex-parte order no longer exist”.
The court also struck out Polaris Bank as a party to the suit and adjourned further hearing on the matter to January 26, 2026.
The order had restrained 25 licensed Nigerian banks and financial institutions from releasing or granting access to the defendants’ funds, shares, bonds, letters of credit, promissory notes, bills of lading, and other negotiable instruments, covering amounts equivalent to N3,000,681,722.97 and $6,824,638.75.
Besides Kam Industries Nigeria Limited, other defendants in the suit include its Chairman, Dr. Kamoru Yusuf, and Kamsteel Integrated Company Limited.
Ecobank had instituted the suit, marked FHC/L/CS/1748/2024, by an originating summons dated September 27, 2024.
In the suit, the bank sought a declaration that it is entitled to judgement for the outstanding balance of the facility alleged to be N3 billion and $6.8 million, based on the defendants’ alleged breach of loan terms.
It further urged the court to vest all assets belonging to the second and third defendants — Dr. Kamoru Yusuf and Kamsteel Integrated Company Limited — as part of the debt recovery process, citing the execution of both personal and corporate guarantees in respect of the credit facility.
Specifically, Ecobank asked the court to enter judgement against the three defendants for the alleged indebtedness and to vest in the bank all assets, cash, bonds, real estate, stocks, and negotiable instruments held by the defendants in any financial institution in Nigeria or abroad untill full satisfaction of the debt.
The bank’s claims were supported by a 43-paragraph affidavit, 14 exhibits, and a written address.
Ecobank averred that the $9.5 million facility included a factory charge of $634, 688.75 and an accrued debt of over N3 billion as of July 9, 2024.
However, the defendants contested the claims. Based on the evidence provided by the defendants, the matters appear to be very hostile in the opinion of the court and thus “it was held that Originating Summons are not appropriate where the proceedings are hostile.
“The matter is transferred to the General Cause List for Pleadings to be ordered, as the complexities of the issue involved cannot be adequately resolved through affidavit evidence presented under originating summons”.
In his ruling, Justice Osiagor noted that both sides agreed on the involvement of the CBN in the foreign exchange transaction which formed the crux of the dispute.
The court held that the Central Bank is a necessary party or at minimum, a vital witness for a comprehensive adjudication.
“The mutual recognition of the Central Bank of Nigeria’s role makes it essential for the court to understand the full scope of the bank’s involvement,” the judge stated, reiterating that any judgement without such clarity would be deficient.
