GHL, Other Defendants Ask Court To Lift Freezing Orders As Judge Adjourns For Ruling In Mareva Suit
LAGOS JANUARY 18TH (NEWSRANGERS)-General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL) has urged the Federal High Court in Lagos to discharge the order freezing the assets and accounts of General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL) and its related entities, aimed at recovering an alleged loan of $225.8 million extended to the oil company on grounds that it was obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation and the concealment of material facts at the time the order was obtained.
Justice Deinde Dipeolu had, on December 30, 2024, granted an ex-parte order restricting all commercial banks from releasing or dealing with any assets or monies belonging to General Hydrocarbons Limited, its agents, subsidiaries, or sister companies and its shareholder up to the amount claimed by the plaintiffs.
The judge had also issued the Mareva order against the bank accounts Prince Nduka Obaigbena, Efe Damilola Obaigbena, and Olabisi Eka Obaigbena—directors of General Hydrocarbons Limited who are shareholders and directors of GHL. Other respondents in the suit include GHL 121 Ltd, Aimonte Nigeria Limited, Calidin Global Resources Limited, CESL Oyo Production BBC Limited (owner of FPSO Tamara Tokoni), CESL Oyo Production O&M Limited, and VITOL SA.
Respondents also include Mercuria Energy Trading SA, Trafigura PTE Limited, Glencore Energy UK Limited, Schlumberger Nigeria Limited, Schlumberger Overseas SA, and Baker Hughes Oilfield Services.
While arguing for the lifting of the order, GHL’s attorney, Abiodun Layonu, SAN, claimed that the bank’s suit represents an abuse of the court process.
He also claimed that the bank had failed to disclose an earlier order granted by Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa that restrained the bank 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 court was misled into granting it and that it had caused significant financial harm to GHL.
“There is a clear case of suppression of facts here because the Plaintiffs had failed to disclose material and fundamental facts by withholding information on the judgment of Lewis-Allagoa J of the Federal High Court prohibiting FBN from, amongst others:
“Making any calls or demands or taking any steps whatsoever to enforce any security, receivables, instrument, finance documents or assets of GHL which have been charged as security for the facility agreements in respect of GHL’s operation of OML 120, pending the hearing and determination of the arbitration proceeding,“ Layonu SAN said while moving his application to set aside the Mareva injunction and other punitive ex parte orders granted to the plaintiffs (First Bank of Nigeria ”FBN” and FBNQuest Limited).
Laniyonu SAN, further argued that, the Plaintiff’s cannot and should not be allowed to extract a new cause of action before His Lordship when they are already subjudice on the same matter and are attempting to rely on the exact same documents that Allagoa J’s order specifically mentioned above and already restrained them from.
According to him, the Plaintiffs had come before His Lordship Dipeolu J by means of Originating Summons in a matter that is still being contested in Arbitration and misled his Lordship into thinking that a judgment sum had already been awarded in their favour when this was not the case. He argued that the proper mode of action should have been a writ because the Plaintiff’s are still required to prove their case (particularly the disputed sums) against the defendants and the defendants were never given an opportunity to defend themselves before the Mareva order was granted.
Laniyonu SAN said the asset being contested was an oil block and the Plaintiffs had failed to show how an oil block can be dissipated or relocated, noting that General Hydrocarbons is fighting to source for funds to develop and produce crude in Nigeria whilst on the other hand the Plaintiffs are the ones preventing this from happening through all manner of strong arm tactics including an attempt to take over the asset, withholding of funds from service providers to GHL for performance of vital services as agreed and more recently, bullying in the media.
He argued that under the present circumstances, if the Plaintiffs had been honest as was required of them in a court proceeding, being the temple of justice, would his Lordship have granted the Mareva order?
Layonu SAN respectfully submitted that the answer to that question should be answered in the negative by His Lordship.
Similarly, Mr. Olumide Aju, SAN representing the 2nd to 5th defendants in the matter also prayed the court to dismiss the entire suit on grounds that it constitutes a gross abuse of court process or in the alternative discharge the Mareva orders because it was obtained without a full and frank disclosure of the fact that there is an ongoing Arbitration between FBN and GHL in respect of the alleged indebtedness of GHL to FBN and that the same Federal High court had earlier restrained FBN from filing any action or commencing any enforcement proceedings against GHL pending the outcome of that Arbitration irrespective of the restyling and addition of new parties to this new suit.
Mr. Aju argued that FBN and its counsel failed to disclose the existence of this order when they sought and obtained the Mareva order on an exparte basis. Aju SAN, said the court would not have granted the order if FBN had informed the court and exhibited Allagoa J’s restraining order against FBN when they sought the Mareva orders.
He further argued that apart from a mere allegation that fund of GHL was being diverted, there is no evidence presented by FBN to show any diversion of funds before sweeping Mareva orders were made against the assets of the 2nd to 4th defendant who are shareholders and directors of the company and who did not execute any personal guarantees in respect of the of the said loan.
Mr Abiodun Anibaba appearing for the sixth and seventh defendants made the point that his clients had absolutely nothing to do with the case before the court and could not understand why they were included in the suit.
He also made a very valid point that an undertaking for damages is a condition precedent that should have been fulfilled by the Plaintiffs prior to the order of Mareva and not a condition subsequent as appears to have occurred in this case.
In response, Mr. Victor Ogude, SAN from the law firm of Babajide Koku asserted that First Bank provided all relevant facts in its affidavit supporting the suit. He pointed out that the parties involved in Justice Lewis-Allagoa’s case and those before Justice Dipeolu are different and that nothing in the earlier order prevents First Bank from pursuing the current matter under different agreements.
He also noted that no law restricts their constitutional right to seek judicial redress for disputes.
The lawyers further stated that Nduka Obaigbena, Efe Damilola Obaigbena, and Olabisi Eka Obaigbena were named in the suit in their capacities as directors of GHL.
Ogude urged the court to dismiss GHL’s suit as incompetent and set a date for the hearing of the substantive suit.
After considering the arguments presented, the judge reserved the ruling for a later date, which will be communicated to both parties.
ThisDay
For media advert placement, events coverage, media consultancy, placement of publications and further inquiries please WhatsApp 2348023773039 or email: labakevwe@yahoo.com
Short URL: https://newsrangers.com/?p=131896
Posted by News Rangers
on Jan 18 2025. Filed under National.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
