Oil Firm, Directors Ask Court To Overturn Order Freezing Accounts

Plural Oil Marketing Limited has urged the Federal High Court, Lagos, to lift the ex parte order that froze its accounts in several banks due to a disputed debt litigation with Providus Bank Plc.

In a motion on notice filed by the company and its directors, Babatunde Oyefolu and Oluwatobiloba Oyefolu, the applicants sought for a declaration that the order was obtained unfairly, lacked jurisdiction and that the bank should be held liable for the misuse of ex parte procedures.

They described the order, issued on October 7, 2025, as illegal, oppressive, and obtained in violation of their constitutional right to a fair hearing.

They also argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because the order was issued before they were served with any legal documents.

The applicants also pointed out that the order itself instructed Providus Bank to effect substituted service—indicating service had not been completed when the accounts were frozen.

Plural Oil said it only learned of the freezing order on October 9, 2025, when various banks received compliance notices from the bank’s lawyers.

The company described this as a “textbook breach” of Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, which assures the right to be heard before adverse legal actions.

They also accused Providus Bank of not fully disclosing material facts when seeking the ex parte order.

In an affidavit attached to the suit, Plural Oil claimed that it had paid N891,036,000 towards the disputed facility and had requested reconciliation and restructuring on the same day the bank approached the court.

They further claimed that Providus Bank previously petitioned the EFCC, resulting in the MD’s seven-day detention under harsh conditions, despite the matter being civil.

Delays in reconciliation, they argued, were due to the bank’s failure to provide timely schedules for over a year.

The applicants contended that these omissions were intentional, aiming to create a false sense of urgency and justify the ex parte order.

Plural Oil argued that the order extended beyond lawful preservation measures by freezing all accounts linked to the BVNs of the 2nd and 3rd applicants, including accounts where they were only signatories and those owned by third parties unconnected to the dispute.

They described this as judicial overreach and a violation of Section 44 of the Constitution, which forbids unlawful deprivation of property.

The court has adjourned the hearing of the Motion on Notice to December 22.