The Nation Newspaper

Tag: GHL

  • Court to rule December 8 on representation dispute in GHL, AMCON suit

    Court to rule December 8 on representation dispute in GHL, AMCON suit

    Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa of the Federal High Court, Lagos, yesterday fixed December 8 for ruling on the dispute over who is legally authorised to represent General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL) in a suit filed by the company against the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) and others.

    At the resumption of proceedings, Dr. Abiodun Layonu (SAN) and Oluseye Opasanya (SAN) each announced appearance for the plaintiff.

    Layonu stated that he remained the counsel on record for GHL and that he had complied with the court’s directive by filing an application and further affidavit dated December 3.

    The lawyer urged the court to affirm him as the proper legal representative of the company, arguing that AMCON’s appointment of a Receiver/Manager was made in violation of existing court orders.

    But Opasanya informed the court that AMCON had appointed Receiver/Manager over the company since September 18 and that he had exhibited the instrument of appointment in an affidavit dated December 2.

    He submitted that upon the appointment of a Receiver, the authority of the company’s directors, including the power to appoint a lawyer, became impossible, and any lawyer acting on their instruction lost authority.

    READ ALSO; Sabinus confirms amicable dissolution of marriage

    Relying on Supreme Court authority, the lawyer argued that the directors’ powers had been frozen and paralysed, and urged the court to approve the change of counsel in favour of the Receiver.

    The dispute had stalled the contempt proceedings filed by General Hydrocarbons Limited against AMCON.

    The contempt application is tied to earlier interim orders restraining AMCON from taking recovery steps against the company or interfering with its assets pending the determination of a motion, including but not limited to restraining AMCON from appointing a receiver/manager.

    The underlying suit relates to Oil Mining Leases (OMLs) 120 and 121, which were parts of a structured recovery arrangement involving First Bank of Nigeria and Atlantic Energy Drilling Concept Limited over a substantial non-performing loan. Under this arrangement, General Hydrocarbons Limited was permitted to operate the assets under a Tripartite Agreement with First Bank and AMCON, applying production revenues toward the loan repayment.

    GHL later came under scrutiny following allegations by AMCON and First Bank of operational and financial misconduct by the former management, including revenue diversion, unpaid contractors, and the risk of asset shutdown.

    Citing the urgency to protect the assets, AMCON appointed a Receiver over GHL on September 18, 2025, under Sections 34 and 48 of the AMCON Act.

    AMCON maintains that the former directors, whose powers were extinguished by the receivership, nonetheless, filed the suit without lawful authority in an attempt to obstruct the Receiver’s work.

    Since assuming control, the Receiver has taken steps to stabilise operations, while accusing the former management of attempting to misuse court orders to undermine the receivership.

    Justice Allagoa adjourned the matter to December 8, 2025, for ruling on which counsel is properly authorised to represent the plaintiff.

  • GHL: FBN’s alleged appeal of orderlifting Mareva abuse of court process

    GHL: FBN’s alleged appeal of orderlifting Mareva abuse of court process

    Our attention has been drawn to various reports and advertisements by First Bank over the weekend purportedly proffering reasons why the banks should not comply with the orders of Hon. Justice Deinde Dipeolu lifting the interim Mareva orders and other orders made on 30 December 2024 claiming they have appealed or are appealing the ruling of Justice Dipeolu in the dispute between FBN and GHL over FBN’s non-compliance with its obligations.

    The purported appeal filed by FBN and the said motion for injunction/ suspension of the discharge order is another incidence of gross abuse of process.

    Compliance with the order is therefore a completed act and does not need any further steps to be taken as erroneously claimed by FBN. In law, you cannot injunct a completed act.

    Secondly, the order discharging the Mareva is a declarative order. In law, a declarative order cannot be stayed nor can it be suspended, particularly after it has been obeyed.

    This is another incidence of desperation on the part of FBN and its lawyers either by deliberately misinterpreting extant court rulings, suppressing facts to the court or generally misinforming the general public.

    We reiterate and confirm that banks have complied with the extant orders of court, except perhaps FBN.

    These orders were set aside by Deipeolu J., primarily because FBN had deliberately withheld material facts about an existing order of court made by Allagoa J., restraining FBN from approaching the courts (or any other forum) to enforce the facility agreement between FBN and GHL pending the arbitration between the parties which was initiated almost two months before FBN had approached Dipeolu J. for the interim Mareva orders.

    It is important to state that orders of court are valid and enforceable upon pronouncement and do not require more for them to come into effect.

    The order of Dipeolu J. lifting the Mareva orders is therefore the status quo between the parties with respect to accounts maintained by GHL, its directors and shareholders with the banks.

    FBN has also falsely informed the public that they have filed a notice of appeal against the said orders of Dipeolu J. lifting the Mareva orders, together with an application for injunction/suspension of the discharge order.

    We wish to state unequivocally that at the time of this publication, no notice of appeal or motion for injunction has been filed by FBN against the discharge orders of Dipeolu J.

    If they have been filed, they have not been served on GHL.

    It is pertinent to mention that even if these court processes had been filed and served on GHL, they do not have the effect that FBN has deliberately, again, misrepresented to the public.

    Read Also: GHL: banks have lifted Mareva injunction against us

    This is so because no positive orders of court have been made in respect of these court processes to bind the banks or GHL.

    In all, it is safe to say that these publications have been made without appropriate legal advice and we urge the public to disregard them.

    In the interim, the arbitration process initiated by GHL in relation to FBN’s non-compliance with its obligations upon which it declared profit from a loss position in 2021/2023 is ongoing and GHL remains committed to participating in that process and bringing this dispute to a logical conclusion. Many Thanks. Management. For: General Hydrocarbons Ltd.

  • Injunctive orders against Obaigbena, GHL, others stay, say FBN lawyers

    Injunctive orders against Obaigbena, GHL, others stay, say FBN lawyers

    Six of the injunctive orders made by Justice D. I Dipeolu on December 30 last year against General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL), publisher of Thisday newspaper, Mr Nduka Obaigbena and other directors of the company were not discharged yesterday by the judge, contrary to claims by the GHL.

    What the court discharged, according to counsel to the First Bank, are two of the eight injunctive orders. Both are Mareva orders.

    The other injunctive orders – 6,7,8,9,10 and 11 were not discharged or set aside, and remain valid and subsisting, the counsel said.

    The orders are as follows:

    •An order of interim injunction restraining the 1st – 4th defendants, agents, servants, officers, privies, subsidiaries, sister companies or any other person natural or artificial howsoever called under the control of the 1st – 4th defendants from transferring or otherwise dealing with any and all of the monies standing to the credit of the 1st – 4th defendants in any account whatsoever maintained by the 1st – 4th defendants with any of the aforementioned Banks wherever situate up to the amount of the plaintiff/applicant’s claim of the total sum of $225,802,379.69 (Two hundred and twenty-five million eight hundred and two thousand, three hundred and seventy-nine dollars and sixty-nine cents) being the indebtedness on the 1st defendant’s account with the 1st plaintiff/applicant as of 30th September, 2024 in respect of the loan facilities granted to the 1st defendant by the 1st plaintiff/applicant, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction.

    •An order mandating all the commercial banks in Nigeria to wit: Guaranty Trust Bank Limited; Access Bank Plc; Citibank Nigeria Limited; Carbon Bank; Ecobank Nigeria Plc; Fidelity Bank Plc; First Bank Of Nigeria Limited; First City Monument Bank Plc; Flutter Wave; Globus Bank; Heritage Bank Limited; Jaiz Bank; Keystone Bank Limited; Opay Digital Services Limited; Palmpay Limited; Paystack Payments Limited; Piggyvest; Momo Payment Services Limited; Polaris Bank Limited; Providus Bank; Stanbic Ibtc Bank Nigeria Limited; Standard Chartered Bank; Sterling Bank Plc; Suntrust Bank Limited; Union Bank of Nigeria Plc; United Bank For Africa Plc; Unity Bank Plc; Wema Bank Plc; Zenith Bank Plc and all other financial institutions operating in Nigeria to file and serve on the plaintiffs/applicant solicitors within seven (7) days of serving this court order on them, an affidavit disclosing the sum standing to the 1st– 4th defendants’ credit with a duly certified statement of accounts of the 1st – 4th defendants/respondents in their respective custody from the date of its opening till the date this Order is served on the bank(s).

    •An order mandating the 8th – 13th defendants to file and serve on the plaintiffs/applicants a statement disclosing the quantum of products lifted from the 8thDefendant or OML 120 since the commencement of production in OML 120.

    •An order of interim injunction restraining the 8th to 16th defendants and any other third parties from dealing with any assets and receivables related or connected with OML 120 without depositing the proceeds thereof to the 1st defendant’s account in the 1st plaintiff bank, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction.

    •An order of interim injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants whether by themselves, members, shareholders, agents, servants, proxies, allies, from transferring and/or dissipating, diminishing or dealing with any interest in the 1st defendant’s assets including but not limited to crude stock, insurance policies, all forms of stock of shares, all forms of receivables and contracts which have been pledged as securities for the loan facilities granted by the 1st Plaintiff to the 1st defendant, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction.

    •An order of interim injunction restraining the 2nd – 4th defendants being directors of the 1st defendant, whether by themselves, agents, servants, proxies, allies, from transferring and/or dissipating any interest in their assets wherever located in Nigeria, movable or immovable, pending the determination of the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction.

    The counsel said: “For the avoidance of doubt, the 1st – 4th defendants (GHL and its directors) are still restrained from dealing with and/or dissipating monies in their respective accounts and assets connected to the subject matter of the suit.

    “It is also pertinent to refute the false insinuation that punitive costs were awarded against FBN.”

    Read Also: Igando/Ikotun LCDA chairman visits RCCG Peace House, highlights achievement

    The matter has been further adjourned to February 19, 2025, to enable all defendants respond to the substantive suit before a hearing date is given by the judge.

    “The court ruled that the suit filed by FBN before Dipeolu J, did not amount to an abuse of court process as the cause of action and the parties are different from the cause of action and parties in the proceedings that were before Allagoa J.

    “For the above reason, the court was of the view that the suit filed by FBN was properly constituted and dismissed the prayers of the 1st – 5th defendants urging the court to strike out/dismiss the suit for being an abuse of court process.

    “With respect to GHL’s contention that FBN suppressed and/or concealed the preservative orders made by Allagoa J., the court also held that FBN disclosed the existence of the preservative orders of Allagoa J. in paragraph 61 of their Affidavit save that the court order was not attached.

  • GHL: we floored First Bank in court

    GHL: we floored First Bank in court

    In a landmark victory for General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL), the Federal High Court in Lagos has set aside an order of Mareva injunction freezing the assets of the company and its directors.

    The court upheld the arguments of GHL’s counsel, Abiodun Layonu (SAN), as well as the arguments of Olumide Aju (SAN) representing the second to fifth defendants.

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

    Justice Dehinde Dipeolu ruled that when compared with an earlier order issued by Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa in Suit No. 1953, the Mareva injunction should be set aside.

    The court found that First Bank of Nigeria and FBNQuest LTD, at whose instance the order was procured, failed to fully disclose Justice Lewis-Allagoa’s order, which made the Mareva injunction incompatible with the earlier ruling.

    The court consequently agreed with GHL and the second to fifth defendants that First Bank deliberately “suppressed facts” to mislead the court into granting the order against GHL.

    The court, in the circumstance, said it had no choice but to set aside the order freezing GHL accounts as well as the accounts of all the other defendants in the case.

    First Bank had approached the court via an ex-parte application against GHL and 15 other entities even when there was a subsisting judgment.

    Responding to the suit, GHL and some of the defendants urged the court to discharge the order freezing its assets and accounts on the grounds that the court was misled in granting same.

    The oil firm argued that the order was obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment of material facts.

    GHL and other applicants accused First Bank of misleading the court to obtain orders against them.

    They argued that had all the facts been presented before the trial judge, the order against them would not have been granted.

    The trial judge upheld GHL’s arguments and consequently set aside the freezing order.

    Justice Dipeolu held: “Based on all of my findings above, I hold that the first defendant/applicant’s motion on notice dated the 13th of January 2025 succeeds.

    Read Also: Tompolo applauds Kyari at 60, highlights role in restoring Nigeria’s economic prosperity

    “The Mareva order of 30th December 2024 is hereby set aside.”

    The judge added: “Therefore, the second to fifth defendants/applicants’ alternative relief succeeds to the extent that the Mareva order of 30th December 2024 is set aside against the second to fifth defendants. This is the ruling of the court.”

    Meanwhile, GHL directors who were also negatively affected by the ex-parte freezing order have begun proceedings worldwide against First Bank.

    They are seeking $1 billion each in damages for defamation and wrongful freezing of their accounts.

    GHL said it would also file a petition against First Bank lawyers Babajide Koku (SAN) and Victor Ogude (SAN) before the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee (LPPC).

    First Bank had prayed that the order freezing the assets and accounts of GHL and its related entities should subsist pending the outcome of its substantive suit to recover an alleged $225.8 million it said it loaned GHL.

    GHL is an oil servicing firm owned by Mr Nduka Obaigbena, Chairman of Arise and publisher of ThisDay Newspapers.

    FirstBank said it extended several credit facilities to GHL for the development of some oil mining lease assets.

    The bank said while it diligently performed its obligations under the loan agreements, GHL allegedly breached them.

    GHL denied owing First Bank, saying it signed the agreement trusting that the lender would comply with its obligations to fund OML 120, “but it has clearly not done so”.

    The Federal High Court in Port Harcourt had also granted an order to arrest and detain the crude oil cargo on board the Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) Vessel Tamara Tokoni belonging to GHL based on an application by First Bank.

  • Court reserves ruling in First Bank, GHL dispute

    Court reserves ruling in First Bank, GHL dispute

    The Federal High Court in Lagos has reserved a ruling on the General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL) application seeking to lift the restrictions placed on its accounts.

    First Bank of Nigeria Limited urged the court to uphold the order.

    The bank prayed that the order freezing the assets and accounts of GHL and its related entities should subsist, pending the outcome of its substantive suit to recover the $225.8 million it said it loaned the oil company.

    The bank objected to GHL’s application through its lawyer, Victor Ogude (SAN).

    In its motion to lift the restraining order, GHL contended that the bank did not disclose all the facts to the court before the Mareva injunction was issued.

    Justice Deinde Dipeolu granted the Mareva injunction on December 30 based on an application by First Bank and FBNQuest Trustees Limited.

    Aside from GHL and Obaigbena, other defendants in the suit are Efe Damilola Obaigbena and Olabisi Eka Obaigbena (first to fourth defendants), who are the directors.

    The others are GHL 121 Ltd, Aimonte Nigeria Limited, Calidin Global Resources Limited, CESL Oyo Production BBS Limited (owner of FPSO Tamara Tokoni) and CESL Oyo Production O & M Limited.

    The rest are Vitol SA, Mercuria Energy Trading SA, Trafigura PTE Limited, Glencore Energy UK Limited, Schlumberger Nigeria Limited, Schlumberger Overseas SA and Baker Hughes Oilfield Services.

    The judge had bared GHL and the Obaigbenas from transferring or dissipating any of their assets located in Nigeria, whether movable or immovable until the court decides on the Motion on Notice for an interlocutory injunction.

    Arguing for the lifting of the order, GHL’s counsel, Abiodun Layonu, claimed that the bank’s suit was an abuse of the court process.

    Read Also: Speaker Abbas laments tanker explosion in Niger

    He told the court that the bank failed to disclose an earlier order granted by Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa that restrained it from taking further action to recover the loan until the parties subjected themselves to arbitration.

    Layonu urged the court to dismiss the Mareva injunction, arguing that the judge was misled into granting it.

    He said the order has caused significant financial harm to GHL.

    However, Ogude asserted that First Bank did not deceive the court in obtaining the order.

    He insisted that the bank provided all relevant facts in its supporting affidavit.

    According to him, the parties before Justice Lewis-Allagoa’s are different from those before Justice Dipeolu.

    He said nothing in the earlier order prevents First Bank from pursuing the current matter.

    The SAN noted that no law restricts the bank’s constitutional right to seek judicial redress over disputes.

    Ogude said the Obaigbenas are named in the suit in their capacities as directors of GHL.

    He urged the court to dismiss GHL’s suit as incompetent and set a date for the hearing of the substantive suit.

    After hearing the parties, Justice Dipeolu reserved the ruling for a later date, which will be communicated to the parties.

  • GHL: how 93 oil rig workers were endangered by FBN

    GHL: how 93 oil rig workers were endangered by FBN

    General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL) has faulted a claim of diversion of oil mining proceeds made against it by First Bank of Nigeria Limited.

    The bank had accused GHL of being indebted to it to the tune of $225 million, which the company denied following the freezing of its accounts via a Mareva injunction.

    Reacting to the bank’s diversion allegation and denial of court process abuse, GHL said in a second right of reply which it published yesterday: “It is not our intention to respond to every misinformation or inaccurate information put out by First Bank on the matter with GHL. We will respond to three points for clarity.

    “Diversion: First Bank keeps talking about diversion of funds by GHL without providing any evidence. Here are the facts.

    “As we said before and will repeat now, all GHL contracts and invoices were vetted and paid by FBN through their Credit and Risk teams directly to ALL service providers.

    “FBN’s repeated failures to pay on time within the contractual framework of 5 days which became up to 70 days or not at all, in a clear breach of its Tripartite Agreement obligations as captured below:

    “This failure to pay GHL pending request as per above terms led to an international incident on October 7, 2023, when the drilling rig, Blackford Dolphin, ran out of fuel, food, water and other critical supplies with 93 souls on board, and the Rig was on the verge of declaring MAYDAY.

    “The Managing Director and Executive Director of FBN were abroad and the current Managing Director, Olusegun Alebiousu, who was then the Chief Risk Officer (CRO), was acting for the Managing Director and GHL brought this matter to his urgent attention.

    “He then worked the phone, calling Suppliers and Service Providers one after the other and promised payment within three days. Based on FBN’s assurances, the Service Providers made emergency supplies, but the payment never came.

    “To ensure the safety of life and continuing security at 75KM Offshore Nigeria, GHL had to enter an Irrevocable Third-Party Payment Order with one of the Offtakers to pay the suppliers directly, which stabilised the operation. FBN was later given evidence of the payments made. That is what FBN calls Diversion.

    “We will meet FBN in court with daily reports and log details to debunk this continuing misinformation of diversion.

    “GHL acted to save 93 souls, most of them foreign nationals, who had begun contacting their embassies and home governments, and to save Nigeria from an international incident offshore Nigeria.

    “We are ready, willing and able to present the body of evidence to any court, including the continuing non-payment to Century FPSO and other service providers by FBN despite repeated demands in line with signed agreements.

    “Indeed, we had to cough out our own cash as reflected in our audited financial statements to keep the project afloat or go to court to seek protective reliefs.

    “On abusing the court process and failure to comply with a valid court order, FBN claimed they went to court on a different matter with regards to the Facility Agreement.

    “But Justice Ambrose L. Allagoa had given his judgment after hearing both sides on the Facility Agreement, amongst other issues on December 12, 2024. ‘That an order is granted, restraining the respondent (FBN) either by itself, or acting through its servants, agents, assigns, privies, affiliates howsoever described, including any persons claiming under its authority from making any calls or demands, or taking any steps whatsoever to enforce any security, receivables, instrument, finance documents or assets of the Applicant (GHL) which have been charged as security for the facility agreements in respect of the Applicant’s operation of OML 120, including but not limited to the side letter, and the amended and restated agreements between the Applicant and the Respondent pending the hearing and determination of the arbitration proceedings between the Applicant and the Respondent brought pursuant to Clause 12(c) of the Agreement between the Applicant and the Respondent dated 29th May 2021.’

    “FBN then went to Justice D Dipeolu of the same Federal High Court on December 30, 2024, with the same lawyers, without disclosing this relevant judgment to the Learned Justice, to obtain a Mareva injunction Exparte freezing order against GHL and individual directors who never signed personal guarantees and thus not personally liable.

    “Is this how a 130-year-old blue chip financial institution committed to good governance and rule of law, should behave? Why the hurry to score cheap points to use on social media?

    Read Also: Army apprehends 15 over suspected oil theft in Niger Delta

    “If FBN was so sure of its facts why not put GHL on notice? Why an ex-parte? We leave this to the Justices of the Federal High Court to decide on this matter and we will not make any further comment to avoid being sub-judice.

    “Contrary to FBN’s claims, it sought to appoint an Independent Asset Manager to promote corporate governance. What it sought to do was to appoint a company that it could fire at any time to ‘take over GHL’s business, offices and operations within 90 days’ of further disbursement.

    “GHL refused and counter-offered a Joint Operating Committee with FBN and they refused, resulting in the current impasse which they weaponised and made a public spectacle with their publication of their Exparte Mareva Freezing Orders. GHL had to stand its ground against such bullying.

    “This second right of reply has become necessary, again, in view of FBN’s continued misstatement but they have failed to debunk or deny the foundational material facts and seek to eat their cake and have it.

    “Luckily, FBN has not denied the Subrogation MOU and the benefits it got upfront from GHL’s intervention. They should meet their obligations and all will be well. Thank you.”