First Bank of Nigeria has insisted that contrary to reports circulating in the media, the Federal High Court in Lagos, ruled on January 29, 2025, that its suit in the case of FBN & ANOR v. General Hydrocarbons Limited and 15 others did not constitute an abuse of court process.
The bank clarified that the cause of action and the parties involved in its suit before Justice Dipeolu J. differ from those in the proceedings before Justice Allagoa, as observed by Dipeolu.
This was disclosed in a statement issued by the bank on Wednesday.
Nairametrics previously reported that the Federal High Court in Lagos on Wednesday set aside its Mareva orders, which had frozen $225.8 million in assets and accounts linked to General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL), its affiliates, and prominent individuals, including media mogul Nduka Obaigbena.
Justice D.I. Dipeolu delivered the ruling in response to a motion on notice filed by GHL’s legal team against First Bank of Nigeria Limited and FBNQuest Trustees Limited.
The court’s earlier interim decision followed allegations of unpaid loans totaling $225.8 million, allegedly owed to First Bank.
General Hydrocarbons, an oil and gas company, is owned by Nduka Obaigbena, the publisher and founder of ThisDay Newspapers and Arise TV.
The company operates OML 120, an oil-producing block in Nigeria.
Initially, the court had directed all major commercial banks and financial institutions in Nigeria to freeze the defendants’ accounts and restrict access to funds or assets up to the claim amount, pending further legal proceedings.
FBN Reacts
Reacting to the development, First Bank stated that the court ruled its suit was properly constituted and dismissed the prayers of some of the defendants who sought to have the case struck out for being an abuse of the court process.
Regarding GHL’s press statement accusing First Bank of suppressing or concealing the preservative orders issued by Justice Allagoa, the bank responded that the court acknowledged FBN had disclosed the existence of the preservative orders in paragraph 61 of its affidavit, although the actual order was not attached by the bank.
“On the Mareva order, the court ruled that even though First Bank disclosed the existence of the preservative orders obtained from Justice Allagoa, the judge would nonetheless discharge the Mareva order due to those prior orders,” the bank stated.
First Bank maintains that only the Mareva orders were quashed.
“It is important to stress that the injunctive orders made by Justice Dipeolu on December 30, 2024, totaled eight, of which only two were Mareva orders. The other injunctive orders—Orders 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11—were neither discharged nor set aside and remain valid and subsisting,” FBN asserted.
The bank highlighted that among the standing orders are:
“An order of interim injunction restraining the 1st–4th defendants, their agents, officers, subsidiaries, or any other affiliated entity from transferring or otherwise dealing with funds in any accounts maintained with the aforementioned banks, up to the sum of $225,802,379.69, pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction.”
“For the avoidance of doubt, the 1st–4th defendants (GHL and its directors) remain restrained from dealing with or dissipating funds in their respective accounts, as well as assets connected to the subject matter of the suit,” the bank emphasized.
Additionally, First Bank refuted claims that the court awarded punitive costs against it, calling such insinuations misleading.
Nairametrics gathered that the case has been adjourned to February 19, 2025, to allow all defendants to respond to the substantive suit before a hearing date is determined.
What’s Next?
- Sources told Nairametrics that further hearings on this case will determine its ultimate impact, with potential ramifications for Nigeria’s financial services sector.
- The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for corporate governance and the financial stability of the affected entities.
