A major controversy has erupted following the orders made by Justice Dehinde Dipeolu on October 25, 2025, in the ongoing legal dispute between Nestoil and FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited, under Suit No. FHC/L/CS/2127/2025. The case has attracted widespread attention as the First Charge Holders—Glencore Energy UK Limited, Fidelity Bank Plc, Mauritius Commercial Bank, and African Finance Corporation—seek to have the Ex-parte orders overturned.
The First Charge Holders allege that the Ex-parte orders were obtained through misrepresentation by the Plaintiffs. They argue that the orders, which grant Nestoil the authority to appoint a receiver/manager over the Defendants’ assets, unlawfully impede their ability to manage their financial interests, particularly in relation to the 2nd Defendant, Neconde Energy Limited. On November 6, 2025, the Senior Lenders filed a petition to be joined in the case, demanding that the orders be vacated.
In a comprehensive 335-page application, the Senior Lenders argued that the Ex-parte orders were granted unlawfully, with accusations that the Plaintiffs misrepresented facts to the court. They also sought the removal of Mr. Abubakar Sulu-Gambari, the appointed receiver/manager, claiming his appointment was based on inaccurate information. The affidavit filed in support of their application reveals that Neconde’s interest in OML 42 had already been pledged as collateral for loans obtained by the First Charge Holders, but the Plaintiffs had attempted to include this asset in their motion without proper consent.
Despite this, Justice Dipeolu issued orders impacting Neconde’s assets, including its interest in OML 42, even though no agreement was made by the First Charge Holders for additional charges on these assets. This has raised serious questions about the legal basis for the orders granted by the court.
The controversy escalated when the Plaintiffs, through their Ex-parte motion, sought approval to involve the police, Navy, and DSS in the enforcement of the orders, which included seizing crude oil and assets related to Neconde’s interest in OML 42. Critics argue that these measures were disproportionate and could severely harm the Defendants’ business operations.
Legal experts have pointed to past rulings, such as the Supreme Court’s decision in ECOBANK vs. Honeywell Flour Mills, to highlight the importance of caution when granting Ex-parte orders. The Court had ruled that such orders, which freeze assets or restrict business operations, should only be granted under clear circumstances and with due process.
With growing concerns over judicial overreach, there are calls for the National Judicial Council to investigate Justice Dipeolu’s actions in this case. Allegations of bias and the potential abuse of power have raised questions about the fairness of the Ex-parte orders and the extent of judicial discretion in commercial disputes. As the case unfolds, it is likely to become a significant point of reference for legal professionals and the judiciary in Nigeria.
