The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has granted Union Bank Plc an interim order of Mareva Injunction restraining Swift Networks Limited from accessing its monies up to N7,037,410,548.23 in 25 banks pending the determination of an alleged debt recovery suit.

Justice Daniel Osiagor made the order on July 19, 2023 after hearing counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant (Union Bank) Mr. Temilolu Adamolekun move the application to protect the res in suit FHC/L/CS/1366/2023.

Swift Networks is the Defendant while the banks are the 2^ndto 25^thRespondents.

Besides the Plaintiff Union Bank, the other banks include Citibank Nigeria Limited, First City Monument Bank Plc, Globus Bank Limited, Jaiz Bank Limited, Lotus Bank Limited, Parallex, Polaris Bank Limited, Providus Bank Limited, Stanbic Ibtc Bank Nigeria Limited, Standard Chartered Bank Limited, Suntrust Bank Nigeria Limited, Titan Trust Bank and Unity Bank Plc, among other old and new generation banks.

Specifically, Justice Osiagor, after reading the Affidavit in support, the exhibits attached and the written address, ordered as follows:

“That an interim order of Mareva Injunction is granted restraining the Defendant (Swift Networks), its agents, privies and/or assigns or otherwise howsoever from dealing with any of the monies standing to its credit in all of its accounts, records or howsoever held with the 2^ndto 25^thRespondents and also its monies standing to its credit in custody of the Plaintiff up to the tune of N7,037,410,548.23 (billion) or its equivalent in any foreign currency.

“That an Interim order of Mareva Injunction is granted restraining the 2^ndto 25^thRespondents and their agents or anyone whatsoever from releasing to the Defendant or any of its Affiliate, any monies, funds or any other instrument belonging to the Defendant, to the tune of N7,037,410,548.23 or its equivalent in any foreign currency that may be or found in the custody or possession of the 2^ndto 25^thRespondents.”

The court also granted an Interim Injunction restraining Swift Networks by itself or through anyone from tampering with or dealing in any manner with any of its assets/properties in whatsoever form within the jurisdiction of the court, “particularly but not limited to all the assets/properties within the premises of the Defendants at 31 Saka Tinubu Street, Victoria Island, Lagos State.”

The court further directed the 2^ndto 25^thRespondents to “disclose on oath whatever sum of money that may be in their custody belonging to the Defendant for further direction of this Honourable Court.”

Justice Osiagor adjourned till September 27 for hearing of the Motion on Notice.

According to the Plaintiff/Applicants, the grounds of this Application are as follows:

“In the course of the bank/customer relationship, the Plaintiff agreed to grant various credit facilities to the Defendant for several purposes.

“The Defendant failed to meet its repayment obligation(s) to the Plaintiff, however, by its letter of 9^thNovember, 2017, it requested that its debt be restructured by the Plaintiff/Applicant.

“The Plaintiff granted the Defendant’s Application for a restructure and further availed it with other credit facilities. Hence the offer letter of 29^thDecember, 2017.

“Furthermore, the Defendant failed to perform its repayment obligation arising from the offer letter of 29^thDecember, 2017.”

The Plaintiff/Applicants averred that owing to the Defendant’s failure in meeting up with its repayment obligation, the Plaintiff further restructured the Defendant’s indebtedness to it by its offer letter of 28^thSeptember, 2020.

It added that “Under the offer letter of 28 September, 2020, the Plaintiff availed the Defendant with a term loan facility to the tune of N7, 674,292,000.00.

“It is also the clear agreement of parties that the source of repayment shall be from the cash flow from the Defendant’s business operation and other cash flow sources available to the Defendant.

“To the Plaintiffs bewilderment, the facilities matured without the expected receivables as the Defendant failed to meet its repayment obligation to the Plaintiff under the offer letter of 28^thSeptember, 2020 which was duly accepted by the Defendant.” (The Nation: Text, Excluding Headline)