Court Adjourns Ruling on Mareva Injunction Dispute Between First Bank Nigeria and GHL

 

By Freshgist

A Lagos High Court has adjourned for a ruling in a Mareva injunction case involving First Bank Nigeria (FBN), FBNQuest Limited, and General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL). 

The case, which has attracted significant legal attention, centers on the validity of the injunction granted to the plaintiffs by Justice Dipeolu.

During the proceedings on January 17, Dr. Abiodun Layonu SAN, representing General Hydrocarbons Limited, presented an application to set aside the Mareva injunction and other related ex parte orders. 

Layonu argued that the plaintiffs had failed to disclose critical information to the court, specifically a judgment by Justice Lewis-Allagoa of the Federal High Court, which had prohibited FBN from enforcing security on GHL’s assets, including an oil block, during ongoing arbitration proceedings.

Layonu claimed that the plaintiffs had misled the court by suggesting that a judgment sum had already been awarded in their favor when, in fact, no such award had been made. 

He emphasized that the appropriate procedure for the plaintiffs would have been to initiate a writ, as the case was still being contested in arbitration. Layonu also criticized the plaintiffs for failing to demonstrate how an oil block could be dissipated or moved.

Mr. Olumide Aju SAN, representing the second to fifth defendants—Nduka Obaigbena, Efe Obaigbena, Eka Obaigbena, and GHL 121 Limited—also weighed in, arguing that his clients should not have been included in the case. Aju contended that the defendants had no involvement in the contract between FBN and GHL, and he called the inclusion of his clients a case of forum shopping and an abuse of the judicial process.

Aju further addressed the issue of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), asserting that no fraud had been established against his clients, and that the plaintiffs had failed to present any evidence of asset dissipation or fund diversion. He requested that the Mareva order be lifted and that the case against his clients be struck out.

Meanwhile, Mr. Abiodun Anibaba, representing the sixth and seventh defendants, argued that his clients had no connection to the matter and questioned why they had been dragged into the case. 

He also raised the issue that the plaintiffs had failed to provide an undertaking for damages before the Mareva order was granted, which he claimed was a requirement under the law.

The judge, after hearing the submissions, adjourned the case to deliver a ruling at a later date.