Follow Us on Google Discover
The Ogun State High Court in Ifo has declined an application by the claimant in Suit No. HCF/136/2026 Prodigy Finance Limited v. Zenith Bank Plc & Olugbenga Ajala (Receiver Manager of Dolphin Steels Nigeria Limited – in Receivership) seeking to stop the defendants from selling or otherwise dealing with assets of the company valued at about N2.25bn.
The assets involved include land, buildings, machinery, equipment, scrap metal and fixtures at Papalanto, Ewekoro Local Government Area of Ogun State.
According to a Certified True Copy (CTC) of the ruling obtained by PREMIUM TIMES on Tuesday, the Judge, Justice Olugboyega Ogunfowora stated that the claimant had not established that damages would be an inadequate remedy if it ultimately succeeds in the substantive action. The judge gave the ruling on 3 August.
The Judge also considered the fact that the N1.7 billion earlier paid by the claimant towards the transaction had subsequently been refunded. The contract itself had also purportedly been terminated.
Also Read
The court, however, noted that the substantive suit raised serious questions for determination. It did not determine the validity or otherwise of the purported termination of the agreement, leaving that issue for determination in the substantive proceedings.
The dispute arose from an agreement under which Prodigy Finance Limited sought to acquire the assets of Dolphin Steels Nigeria Limited from the Receiver Manager. Following payment by Prodigy Finance Limited, a formal contract was executed on 4 June 2026. The receiver subsequently purported to terminate the agreement, a position disputed by Prodigy Finance Limited.
In the substantive suit, Prodigy Finance Limited is seeking, among other reliefs, declarations concerning the validity and enforceability of the agreement, an order for completion of the transaction and delivery of the assets, as well as damages for alleged breach of contract. The defendants’ position on those claims is yet to be determined by the court as neither defendant filed a counter-affidavit, written address or any other process opposing the application.
In refusing the interlocutory application, the court ruled that the defendants’ failure to respond did not, by itself, mean that the claimant was entitled to the orders it sought. The Court also considered the outstanding balance under the transaction and held that the orders sought would substantially affect the receivership estate. It further held that one of the reliefs sought related to acts which had already occurred and that the balance of convenience did not favour granting the injunction.
The court consequently dismissed the interlocutory application without an order as to costs.
Given the commercial nature of the dispute and the value of the assets involved, the court directed that the substantive suit be heard on an accelerated basis.
The defendants were given 21 days from service of the proceedings to file their statements of defence and accompanying processes, while Prodigy Finance Limited was given seven days thereafter to respond. The court also directed that time would continue to run during the annual vacation.
The case was adjourned to 7 September 2026 for pre-trial conference.
Emmanuel Agbo
Reporter, Premium Times Newspaper
