In a significant legal development, the Federal High Court in Lagos has vacated all receivership orders previously granted against Nestoil Limited and Neconde Energy Limited. Justice Daniel Osiagor, presiding over the case at the Ikoyi division, declared all earlier orders by Justice Isaac Dipeolu null and void as the matter begins afresh.
Legal Victory for Nestoil and Neconde
The court decision came after extensive arguments presented by Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, leading a team of senior advocates representing the defendants. The legal counsel successfully convinced the court that the ex parte orders placing Nestoil and Neconde under receivership had expired by effluxion of time, having lasted beyond the statutory 14-day period.
Justice Osiagor emphasized that all parties involved in the complex financial dispute would now have the opportunity to present their cases on merit. The matter has been scheduled for a fresh hearing beginning November 20, 2025, marking a new chapter in the legal battle that has attracted significant public attention.
Background of the Controversial Case
The legal dispute involves multiple financial institutions and energy companies, including FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited, Fidelity Bank Plc, Mauritius Commercial Bank Limited, and Africa Finance Corporation. At the heart of the matter are allegations by Nestoil and Neconde accusing the lending banks of unlawful debits and penalties on loan accounts.
According to court documents, the companies also claim that the banks refused to provide statement of accounts for over three years despite repeated requests. This lack of financial transparency forms a crucial part of the plaintiffs' complaints against the financial institutions.
Previous Orders Under Scrutiny
The now-vacated orders by Justice Dipeolu had faced widespread criticism from legal experts and civil society organizations. The Nigerian Equity and Justice Movement had particularly condemned the ex parte orders, describing them as judicial rascality and judicial impunity.
The controversial orders had appointed a receiver/manager over Neconde's interest in OML 42 and restricted the personal bank accounts of Nestoil directors through their Bank Verification Numbers (BVNs). Legal analysts had questioned the basis for these far-reaching measures, especially since the veil of incorporation had not been lifted in the case.
Senior Lenders Challenge Previous Ruling
First Charge Holders, including Glencore Energy UK Limited, Fidelity Bank Plc, Mauritius Commercial Bank, and African Finance Corporation, had sought to join the suit and set aside the ex-parte orders of October 25th, 2025. In a comprehensive 335-page document presented to the court, the senior lenders argued that the orders were obtained through misrepresentation and suppression of facts.
The lenders revealed that Neconde had already used its interest in OML 42 as collateral to secure loans from them, and they had refused to permit the creation of any secondary charge in favor of the lenders represented by FBNQuest Merchant Bank. This crucial information, according to court documents, was known to the plaintiffs but not properly presented in the original ex-parte application.
Path Forward and Forensic Audit Demand
With the case starting de novo before Justice Osiagor, Nestoil is expected to demand an independent forensic audit of its affairs with the lending banks. The company plans to request that the Central Bank of Nigeria's customer protection unit conduct this examination to ensure transparency and accountability.
Legal observers have welcomed the decision to restart the case, noting Justice Osiagor's reputation for upholding the rule of law in previous judgments. The fresh hearing provides an opportunity for all parties to present their evidence comprehensively without the shadow of controversial ex-parte orders.
The development represents a significant victory for Nestoil and Neconde, allowing them to continue their operations without receivership constraints while the legal process unfolds. The energy companies can now focus on presenting their case against the banking institutions they accuse of financial misconduct.
