Court Reserves Ruling in N9 Billion Debt Battle as Firm Challenges Bank's Freeze Order
Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke of the Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos, has scheduled April 30, 2026, to deliver a ruling on an application by Petrocam Trading Nigeria Ltd. seeking to vacate an interim order that froze its bank accounts. This order was granted following a claim by Zenith Bank Limited over an alleged debt of N9.05 billion.
Background of the Freezing Order
The court initially issued the freezing order on March 3, 2026, in suit number FHC/L/CS/393/2026, based on an ex parte application by Zenith Bank. The bank aimed to preserve funds allegedly owed by Petrocam and its principal, Patrick Ilo, as of May 31, 2025. At the resumed hearing, Petrocam's legal team, led by Senior Advocates of Nigeria Gboyega Oyewole and Isaac John, urged the court to discharge the injunction, arguing it was obtained through suppression of material facts and has caused severe financial hardship.
Petrocam's Defense and Allegations
In an affidavit by Sunmola Omolara, Head of Trade at Petrocam, the company maintained it is not indebted to Zenith Bank. They stated that all obligations under a 2014 import finance facility have been fully liquidated, with over N7.4 billion in petroleum sales proceeds remitted directly to the bank, supported by records from major industry players like Total Nigeria Plc and Oando Plc.
The firm explained that the facility was structured for repayment through petroleum sales proceeds and Sovereign Debt Notes under the Federal Government's fuel subsidy regime. Petrocam attributed any temporary financing gaps to delays by the government in servicing these notes, noting that obligations were settled between 2019 and 2020, with interest waived through the Debt Management Office.
A key allegation from Petrocam is that Zenith Bank failed to comply with a Central Bank of Nigeria directive mandating a 100% interest waiver on subsidy-related debts. While other banks allegedly complied, Zenith continued imposing interest charges up to 2023 and 2024, despite regulatory panels directing refunds of excess charges.
Petrocam also tendered a Letter of Non-Indebtedness dated December 16, 2024, which they claim confirms the account was in credit and not indebted, except for a contingent liability tied to a bank guarantee. They argued this contradicts the bank's N9 billion debt claim and undermines the legal basis for the freezing order.
Procedural and Negligence Claims
The company challenged the suit's procedure, contending no valid demand notice was issued before the action commenced. They described an alleged demand letter from June 2025, sent to a wrong address, as an afterthought, and noted their banking relationship had remained cordial with no prior indication of debt.
Beyond disputing the debt, Petrocam accused Zenith Bank of negligence, alleging failure to secure foreign exchange for letters of credit, improper accounting of remitted funds, and continued charges despite regulatory interventions. Patrick Ilo, the second defendant, sought to have his name struck out, denying personal liability or fraud, and insisting all funds were domiciled with Zenith Bank.
Legal Arguments and Opposition
In their written address, Petrocam's counsel argued that Zenith Bank failed to meet legal conditions for an interlocutory injunction, citing no serious issue for trial given the alleged non-indebtedness letter. They emphasized the balance of convenience favors Petrocam, which faces operational paralysis, while the bank could be compensated in damages if successful.
Opposing the application, Zenith Bank's counsel, Chief Ajibola Aribisala (SAN), urged the court to dismiss Petrocam's request and retain the freezing order. He argued the bank's claim is based on a subsisting debt, with issues raised by Petrocam being matters for trial, and warned that lifting the order could jeopardize debt recovery if judgment favors the bank.
Adjournment and Next Steps
After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Aneke adjourned the case to April 30, 2026, for ruling. The outcome will determine whether the account freeze remains in place pending further proceedings in this high-stakes financial dispute.
