Justice Daniel Osiagor of Federal High Court in Lagos has varied the terms of a Mareva injunction in the dispute between Ecobank Nigeria and Kam Industries Nigeria over an alleged $9.5 million loan.
The court had granted Kam Industries a one-time release of N500 million to pay salaries to over 4,000 employees.
The original Mareva injunction, granted on October 7, 2024, had frozen assets in 25 banks and financial institutions linked to the defendants, pending determination of the suit (FHC/L/CS/1748/2024).
Other defendants include Dr. Kamoru Yusuf and Kamsteel Integrated Company.
The variation followed a Motion on Notice filed by Chief Afolabi Fashanu (SAN), lead counsel for Kam Industries, who asked the court to temporarily lift the ex parte order to allow limited access to funds.
Justice Osiagor held that the court had the authority to entertain the application and emphasised that the relief was necessary to keep the company operational, preserve jobs, and protect injured workers.
He encouraged both parties to seek an amicable settlement and report back to the court.
Ecobank’s counsel, Kemi Balogun (SAN), said a Notice of Appeal and Stay of Proceedings had been filed, challenging the court’s jurisdiction.
Read Also: Army Court Martial sentences ‘killer’ soldier to death by hanging in Enugu
He argued that since the court already heard the Originating Summons and adjourned to June 4, for ruling, the case could not be relisted without an application for abridgement of time.
Fashanu maintained that the court had inherent jurisdiction to hear the motion and noted that the hearing notice issued was standard practice in Federal High Courts.
Justice Osiagor granted the application, permitting the N500 million disbursement.
Kam Industries supported the application with a 28-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Olumide Abdulkareem, executive d irector of Global Business Development and Legal.
The affidavit pleaded for judicial discretion to prevent the company’s collapse and protect employee welfare.
Citing the Doctrine of Necessity, the deponent argued that the injunction had crippled the company’s ability to pay salaries, buy gas for production, and settle electricity bills—issues that had triggered threats of strike and disconnection from utility providers.
He warned that without urgent relief, the company’s operations and those of its affiliated industries faced imminent collapse.