Sunday, February 16, 2025
Home NEWS Court sets aside Mareva Injunction freezing GHL assets in $225.8m dispute with...

Court sets aside Mareva Injunction freezing GHL assets in $225.8m dispute with First Bank

-

Court sets aside Mareva Injunction freezing GHL assets in $225.8m dispute with First Bank

By Onyewuchi Ojinnaka

The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos on Wednesday set aside an ex parte Mareva Injunction which froze the assets of General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL).
The injunction was made in connection with a disputed $225.8 million lawsuit filed by First Bank.

Justice Deinde Dipeolu set aside the injunction in his ruling on Wednesday and held that the injunction violated an existing court order of concurrent jurisdiction.

- Advertisement -

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 Allagoa of same jurisdiction.

Recall that the earlier order, issued on December 12, 2024, had restrained First bank from taking further action to recover the loan until arbitration proceedings between the parties had been concluded.

READ ALSO: Court strikes out defamation suit against Farotimi

The case concerns a loan dispute between First Bank of Nigeria Limited and GHL, along with several other related entities, including GHL 121 Ltd, Aimonte Nigeria Limited, and Schlumberger Nigeria Limited. The injunction had restricted all commercial banks from dealing with assets or funds belonging to GHL and its affiliates.

Challenging the Mareva Injunction
GHL’s counsel, Dr. Abiodun Layonu (SAN), argued that the Mareva Injunction represented an abuse of court process, claiming that First Bank had failed to disclose the previous order by Justice Lewis-Allagoa, which had restrained the bank from further action.

- Advertisement -

Layonu contended that the Mareva order had caused significant financial harm to GHL.

Responding, Victor Ogude (SAN) representing First Bank, argued that the bank had not misled the court and had provided all relevant facts.

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

In his ruling, Justice Dipeolu held that First Bank had failed to fully disclose the earlier order, making the Mareva Injunction incompatible with Justice 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 stated, “The court 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, 202. 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.

The ruling stressed lthe court’s jurisdiction to grant the initial Mareva order, but concluded that the injunction could not stand in light of conflicting orders.

Furthermore, the court 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 – 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 case till February 19, 2025, for further proceedings.

- Advertisment -

Must Read

US Embassy, Lagos consulate to close Monday 

0
US Embassy, Lagos consulate to close Monday  By Jeffrey Agbo The United States Embassy in Abuja...