$1bn Debt: Court Lifts Mareva Injunction Against Nestoil, Others

Justice Daniel Osiagor of the Federal High Court in Lagos on Thursday vacated a Mareva injunction placed on the assets of Nestol Oil, Continental Acquisitions Limited and their directors over an alleged $1 billion debt claim.

The court lifted the order following the decision of the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, to reassign the case from Justice Dehinde Dipeolu to his court.

The judge held, in his ruling, that the disputed ex parte injunction had lapsed and was no longer in effect after listening to arguments from the defendants’ lawyers that the order became spent 14 days after a motion to discharge it was filed, in accordance with the Federal High Court Rules.

Justice Dipeolu granted the Mareva injunction on 22 October, 2025, preventing Nestoil, its affiliate Neconde Energy Limited, and the promoters, Dr Ernest Azudialu-Obiejesi and Nnenna Obiejesi, from interfering with funds, shares, and assets held across over 20 financial institutions.

The order also empowered First Trustees Limited and FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited, acting for a consortium of creditor banks, to take possession of Nestoil’s assets under receivership.

At the resumed hearing of the matter on Thursday, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Babajide Koku (SAN), informed the court that his clients had filed a Notice of Appeal challenging Justice Dipeolu’s November 7, 2025, decision to recuse himself, and urged the court to halt proceedings pending the appeal.

However, counsel for Nestoil, Dr Muiz Banire, SAN, submitted that filing a Notice of Appeal does not automatically stay proceedings.

He cited Order 32 Rule 1 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2025 and argued that the court retains inherent power to make preservative orders when necessary.

For his part, Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, who represented Neconde Energy Limited, maintained that under Section 22(1) of the Federal High Court Act, the Chief Judge has statutory authority to transfer any matter at any stage, stressing that such transfers are not subject to appeal.

Olanipekun further claimed that once the matter is transferred, hearings must start afresh, and previous rulings cannot bind the new court.

While the lawyer to the directors, Chinonye Obiagwu, SAN, argued that the matter was effectively restarting, he said the ex parte injunction could not survive the transfer.

He specifically pointed out that under the rules, an ex parte order automatically lapses 14 days after a defendant files a motion to discharge it.

The lawyer cited judicial authorities affirming that Mareva injunctions are temporary emergency measures and cannot be prolonged indefinitely, noting that doing so would violate Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees a fair hearing.

Obiagwu further argued that the defendants filed a motion on October 30 to set aside the order, making the injunction spent by law.

In his ruling, Justice Osiagor affirmed the Chief Judge’s unappealable authority to reassign matters.

He held that the Notice of Appeal pertained to a decision of the previous court and ruled that the Mareva injunction had lapsed by operation of law.

The judge then adjourned the case to November 25 and December 12, 2025, for the hearing of the joinder motion and all pending applications, respectively.