Supreme Court Reserves Judgment in Neconde's Right to Choose Counsel Appeal Against Nestoil
The Supreme Court of Nigeria has reserved judgment in a significant appeal filed by Neconde Energy Limited. The appeal challenges a decision from the Court of Appeal that disqualified the company's chosen legal counsel in an ongoing dispute involving lenders and the oil services firm, Nestoil Limited.
Court Proceedings and Key Arguments
A five-member panel of the apex court, led by Justice Garba Lawal, adjourned the matter for judgment after hearing arguments from counsel representing all parties in the appeal, marked SC/CV/48B/2026. Neconde Energy Limited is the appellant, while the respondents include FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited, First Trustees Limited, Nestoil Limited, Ernest Azudialu-Obiejesi, and Nnena Azudialu-Obiejesi.
During the hearing, the appellants' lead counsel, Bode Olanipekun (SAN), informed the court that all relevant briefs had been filed and served. He noted that the notice of appeal was submitted on February 4, and the appellant's brief, along with a reply brief on points of law and a list of additional authorities, had also been provided. The Supreme Court confirmed this position.
Olanipekun adopted the filed processes on behalf of the appellant and urged the court to allow the appeal. According to the appellant's brief, the dispute originated from financing arrangements involving a club of lenders to Nestoil under a Common Terms Agreement dated December 8, 2022.
Background of the Dispute
The appellant claimed that as part of the transaction, Neconde provided an uncrystallised subordinated charge over receipts from its interest in the OML 42 Joint Venture. This charge was expressly ranked below a senior charge in favor of other lenders and would only crystallize once those senior lenders' facilities were fully satisfied and paid.
Neconde contended that despite the existence of the senior charge and the fact that it had not yet crystallized or the Nestoil facility become due and payable, the first and second respondents purportedly appointed a receiver-manager over the company's OML 42 contracts in August 2025.
The company argued that while the validity of that appointment is still being challenged before the trial court, the Court of Appeal proceeded to grant an application that disqualified Neconde's counsel. The appellate court held that the receiver-manager had the authority to appoint counsel for the company.
Legal Principles and Jurisdictional Issues
Olanipekun submitted that the Court of Appeal failed to consider several issues raised by Neconde and exceeded its jurisdiction by effectively determining who should represent the company in court. He maintained that established legal principles recognize a litigant's constitutional right to be represented by counsel of its choice and urged the Supreme Court to set aside the decision.
In response, counsel representing the Receiver, Ame Ogie, adopted his brief of argument and asked the court to dismiss the appeal. Similarly, counsel for the first respondent, Victor Ogude (SAN), and counsel for the second respondent, M. B. Ganiyu, who was appointed by the Receiver, also urged the court to dismiss the appeal.
During the proceedings, Justice Emmanuel Agim, a member of the panel, drew Ogie's attention to existing judicial precedents, cautioning against relitigating issues already settled by earlier court decisions.
Related Appeal and Court Ruling
In a related appeal, SC/CV/48A/2026, counsel for the appellant, Kunle Adegoke (SAN), applied for the matter to abide by the decision in SC/CV/48B/2026, as both arose from the same set of facts and events and were essentially similar. Although counsel appointed by the Receiver for Nestoil, Ganiyu, counsel for the first respondent, and counsel appointed by the Receiver for the second respondent, Ameh Ogie, initially objected, the court ruled that the outcome of the second appeal would abide by its eventual judgment in SC/CV/48B/2026.
The companies explained that the dispute originated from a suit filed by a consortium of lenders at the Federal High Court in Lagos. However, proceedings at that court were later stayed following ex parte orders obtained from the Court of Appeal by the same lenders that initiated the action.
After listening to all parties, the panel reserved judgment for a later date. The Supreme Court is expected to deliver its decision on the appeal at a date to be communicated to the parties.
