General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL) has asked a Federal High Court in Lagos to discharge the order freezing the assets and accounts of General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL) and its related entities, aimed at recovering an alleged loan of $225.8 million extended to the oil company on grounds that it was obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation and the concealment of material facts at the time the order was obtained.
Justice Deinde Dipeolu had, on December 30, 2024, granted an ex-parte order restricting all commercial banks from releasing or dealing with any assets or monies belonging to General Hydrocarbons Limited, its agents, subsidiaries, or sister companies and its shareholder up to the amount claimed by the plaintiffs.
The judge had also issued the Mareva orders against the bank accounts Nduka Obaigbena, Efe Damilola Obaigbena, and Olabisi Eka Obaigbena—Directors of General Hydrocarbons Limited who are shareholders and Directors of GHL.
Other respondents in the suit include GHL 121 Ltd, Aimonte Nigeria Limited, Calidin Global Resources Limited, CESL Oyo Production BBC Limited (owner of FPSO Tamara Tokoni), CESL Oyo Production O&M Limited, and VITOL SA.
Other respondents are Mercuria Energy Trading SA, Trafigura PTE Limited, Glencore Energy UK Limited, Schlumberger Nigeria Limited, Schlumberger Overseas SA, and Baker Hughes Oilfield Services.
While arguing for the lifting of the order, GHL’s Attorney, Abiodun Layonu, SAN, claimed that the bank’s suit represents an abuse of court process.
He also claimed that the bank had failed to disclose an earlier order granted by Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa that restrained the bank from taking further action to recover the loan until the parties subjected themselves to arbitration.
Layonu urged the court to dismiss the Mareva Injunction, arguing that the court was misled into granting it and that it has caused significant financial harm to GHL.
Similarly, Mr. Olumide Aju, SAN representing the 2nd to 5th defendants in the matter also prayed the court to dismiss the entire the suit on grounds that it constitutes a gross abuse of court process or in the alternative discharge the Mareva orders against the 2nd to 5th defendants because it was obtained without a full and frank disclosure of the fact that there is an ongoing Arbitration between FBN and GHL in respect of the alleged indebtedness of GHL to FBN and that the same Federal High Court had earlier restrained FBN from filing any action or commencing any enforcement proceedings against GHL pending the outcome of that Arbitration.
Mr. Aju argued that irrespective of the restyling and the addition of new parties to this new suit, FBN and its counsel failed to disclose the existence of this order which is related to the loan dispute between FBN and GHL when they sought and obtained the Mareva order on an exparte basis.
He submitted that the Court would not have granted the order if FBN had disclosed and exhibited Allagoa J’s restraining order against FBN when they sought the Mareva orders.
He further argued that apart from a mere allegation that funds of GHL was being diverted, there is no evidence presented by FBN to show any diversion of funds, before sweeping Mareva orders were made against the assets of the 2nd to 4th defendants who are shareholders and Directors of the company and who did not execute any personal guarantees in respect of the said loan.
In response, Mr. Victor Ogude, SAN from the law firm of Babajide Koku asserted that First Bank provided all relevant facts in its affidavit supporting the suit.
He pointed out that the parties involved in Justice Lewis-Allagoa’s case and those before Justice Dipeolu are different and that nothing in the earlier order prevents First Bank from pursuing the current matter under different agreements.
He also noted that no law restricts their constitutional right to seek judicial redress for disputes.
The lawyers further stated that Nduka Obaigbena, Efe Damilola Obaigbena, and Olabisi Eka Obaigbena are named in the suit in their capacities as Directors of GHL.
Ogude urged the court to dismiss GHL’s suit as incompetent and set a date for the hearing of the substantive suit.
After considering the arguments presented, the judge reserved the ruling for a later date, which will be communicated to both parties.
