This post has already been read 2104 times!

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.