Tag Archives: law

Law and Order, News

GHL Accuses AMCON of Attempting Illegal Receivership Despite Court Injunction

Leave a comment

General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL) has raised alarm over what it describes as an unlawful and contemptuous attempt by the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) to appoint a Receiver over the company in defiance of a valid court order.

In a strongly-worded statement on Wednesday, the company stated that Justice Lewis Allagoa of the Federal High Court, Lagos had on 23 September 2025 — in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/1903/2025 — issued an interim injunction expressly restraining AMCON, its Managing Director, the Attorney General of the Federation, First Bank of Nigeria (FBN), and their agents from taking any steps to enforce any rights over GHL or its assets pending the determination of the substantive motion.

GHL noted that the order was again reinforced in open court on 22 October 2025, in the presence of AMCON’s representatives.

The court injunction, as quoted in the GHL statement, specifically restrains AMCON and all persons acting on its behalf from:
“…taking any steps or continuing with any steps whatsoever to enforce any rights against the Applicant (GHL) or its assets, including but not limited to freezing the accounts of the Applicants, its Directors or Shareholders, the appointment of a Receiver/Receiver Manager, Asset Manager, Recovery Agent, etc…”

The order further blocks any such enforcement actions arising from transactions or agreements relating to AMCON’s purchase of First Bank’s non-performing loan against GHL.

According to the company, the attempt to override the court directive amounts to a calculated abuse of judicial processes, and an alleged scheme by institutions and parties acting in collusion to wrongfully take over GHL’s assets.

“We expect institutions and Government agencies to obey Court Orders and govern Nigeria based on the rule of law, and not lend themselves to be used as willing tools in the hands of private companies to oppress and intimidate innocent citizens, corporate or individual,” GHL said.

The energy firm further asserted that it is not indebted to AMCON, FBN, or any financial institution in Nigeria in any form — either directly or indirectly — and therefore described the attempts to appoint a Receiver as “corrupt, fraudulent, and driven by ulterior motives.”

GHL disclosed that the dispute around its crude oil entitlements has now reached the Supreme Court in Suit No: SC/CV/929/2025. It added that it has also filed to set aside what it termed an inconsistent arbitration award at the Federal High Court in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/2241/2025.

The company confirmed that all relevant parties — including AMCON and its legal proxies — are expected to return to Justice Allagoa’s court on 11 November 2025, where GHL intends to formally report the alleged material non-disclosure, abuse of court processes, and disregard for the subsisting orders of the Federal High Court.

While insisting it will “vehemently resist” any illegal takeover attempt, the company appealed for calm among partners, investors, and the general public.

“As a law-abiding citizen, we urge all our stakeholders to remain calm as we are certain that justice will be served according to the law,” the statement added.

Breaking News, Law and Order, News

BREAKING: GHL Floors First Bank As Court Sets Aside Assets Freezing Orders

Leave a comment

….Judge Says First Bank Suppressed Relevant Facts To Secure Order

In a landmark victory for General Hydrocarbons Limited,  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, while upholding the arguments of GHL’s counsel, Abiodun Layonu, SAN held that  the injunction violated an existing order from a court of concurrent jurisdiction.In his ruling, Justice Dehinde Dipeolu, stated 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 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.

First Bank had approached the court via an ex-parte application against General Hydrocarbons Limited and 15 other entities even when there was a subsiting judgement.

Responding to the suit, GHL 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. Meanwhile, GHL directors who were also negatively affected by the ex-parte freezing order have begun proceedings worldwide against First Bank, seeking $1bn each in damages for defamation and wrongful freezing of their accounts.

GHL is also bringing a case in the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee against First Bank lawyers, Babajide Koku SAN and Victor Ogude SAN for unprofessional conduct.

Breaking News, Law and Order, News

Judge Adjourns for Ruling in Mareva Suit between First Bank Nigeria and General Hydrocarbons Limited and Several Others

Leave a comment

A Mareva injunction suit involving First Bank Nigeria, General Hydrocarbons Limited, and several others took a new turn on Friday, January 17, 2025, as Dr. Abiodun Layonu SAN moved to set aside the injunction and other punitive ex parte orders granted to the plaintiffs.

According to Dr. Layonu, there was a clear case of suppression of facts by the plaintiffs, who failed to disclose material and fundamental facts. Specifically, they withheld information on the judgment of Lewis-Allagoa J of the Federal High Court, which prohibited First Bank Nigeria from enforcing any security or assets of General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL) related to its operation of OML 120.

Dr. Layonu argued that the plaintiffs should not be allowed to extract a new cause of action when they are already subjudice on the same matter.

He also pointed out that the plaintiffs misled the court into thinking that a judgment sum had already been awarded in their favor, when in fact, the case is still being contested in arbitration.

The asset in question is an oil block, and Dr. Layonu noted that the plaintiffs failed to show how an oil block can be dissipated or relocated.

He emphasized that General Hydrocarbons is fighting to source funds to develop and produce crude in Nigeria, while the plaintiffs are preventing this from happening through strong-arm tactics.

Dr. Layonu questioned whether the court would have granted the Mareva order if the plaintiffs had been honest about the facts. He submitted that the answer should be in the negative.

Meanwhile, Mr. Olumide Aju SAN, representing the second to fifth defendants, argued that his clients should never have been joined in the suit.

He argued that they are not part of the contract between the first defendant and the plaintiffs and never issued any personal guarantees.

Mr. Aju emphasized that this is a clear case of abuse of court and forum shopping, which should not be tolerated.

He also pointed out that there is no established fraud against the second to fifth defendants and that the word “fraud” should not be used loosely to cover up the plaintiffs’ mistakes.

In addition, Mr. Abiodun Anibaba, appearing for the sixth and seventh defendants, argued that his clients have nothing to do with the case and could not understand why they were included in the suit.

He also noted that an undertaking for damages is a condition precedent that should have been fulfilled by the plaintiffs prior to the Mareva order.

The judge has adjourned the case for ruling, and the outcome is eagerly awaited.

The case highlights the complexities of Mareva injunctions and the need for careful consideration of the facts and the law. As Dr. Layonu noted, the court must ensure that justice is served and that the rights of all parties are protected.