Justice Deinde Dipeolu of the Federal High Court in Lagos has set aside an ex parte Mareva Injunction that froze the assets of General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL) in connection with a disputed $225.8 million lawsuit.

The court held that the injunction violated an existing order from a court of concurrent jurisdiction.

Justice Dipeolu ruled that while the current suit was not an abuse of court process when compared to Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1953/2024, the Mareva Order granted on 30 December 2024 must be set aside due to conflicting orders from Justice Allagoa.

The earlier order, Issued on 12 December 2024, had restrained the bank from taking further action to recover the loan until arbitration proceedings between the parties had been concluded.

The case concerns a loan dispute between First Bank of Nigeria Limited and GHL, along with several other related entities, including GHL 121 Ltd, Aimonte Nigeria Limited, and Schlumberger Nigeria Limited. The injunction had restricted all commercial banks from dealing with assets or funds belonging to GHL and its affiliates.

Challenging the Mareva Injunction

GHL?s counsel, Dr Abiodun Layonu (SAN), argued that the Mareva Injunction represented an abuse of court process, claiming that First Bank had failed to disclose the previous order by Justice Lewis-Allagoa, which had restrained the bank from further action.

Layonu contended that the Mareva order had caused significant financial harm to GHL.

In response, Victor Ogude (SAN), representing First Bank, argued that the bank had not misled the court and had provided all relevant facts.

He emphasised that the parties in the earlier case before Justice Allagoa were different and that the existing order did not preclude First Bank from pursuing this new suit under separate agreements.

In his ruling, Justice Dipeolu held that First Bank had failed to fully disclose the earlier order, making the Mareva Injunction incompatible with Justice Allagoa?s previous ruling.

The court acknowledged that while the current suit was not an abuse of process, it had to respect the prior orders in place.

Justice Dipeolu stated:

*?I have carefully read through all that is contained in the Originating Summons in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1953/24 and the Interim Orders of Hon. Justice Allagoa J. dated 12 December 2024. It appears to me that the Interim Orders made by Hon. Justice Allagoa J. revolve around the arbitration proceedings between the 1st Defendant and the 1st Plaintiff in this case, which arbitration proceedings are pursuant to Clause 12? of the Agreement between the 1st Defendant and the 1st Plaintiff dated 29 May 2021. This position is reflected in all the Interim Orders granted on 12 December 2024.

?Although the Interim Orders made by this Court on 30 December 2024 are in relation to the subsequent facilities agreement between the 1st Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant, and it does not extend to the receivables in the agreement of 29 May 2021, also, the present suit, on the face of it, if placed side by side with FHC/L/CS/1953/2024, is not an abuse of process for the reasons given above. However, in view of the Orders of Allagoa J. made on 12 December 2024, the Mareva order granted by this Court on 30 December is hereby set aside.

?Based on all my findings above, I hold that the 1st Defendant/Applicant Motion on Notice dated 13 January 2025 succeeds. The Mareva Order of 30 December 2024 is hereby set aside.?*

The ruling emphasised the court?s jurisdiction to grant the initial Mareva order but concluded that the injunction could not stand in light of conflicting orders.

Furthermore, the court ruled that the 2nd to 5th defendants, who were affected by the Mareva orders, had the right to seek the dismissal of the suit.

Justice Dipeolu further held that the 2nd to 5th defendants were necessary parties affected by the interim Mareva orders made by the court.

?It beats this Court why the same Plaintiffs who have brought the 2nd to 5th Defendants to court in their involvement in the subject matter of this suit are the same Plaintiffs challenging the 2nd to 5th Defendants from seeking to apply to dismiss or strike out this suit, knowing fully well that the Mareva Interim Orders of this Court dated 30 December 2024 affected the 2nd to 5th Defendants/Applicants. Being affected by the Orders of this Court, I hold that the 2nd to 5th Defendants/Applicants are entitled to seek this Court to strike out or dismiss this suit,? the court held.

Justice Dipeolu adjourned the case till 19 February 2025 for further proceedings. (Daily Sun)

Update news