AMCON Suffers Major Defeat as Court Revokes Attempt to Place GHL Under Receivership

• Slams abuse of process, rebukes agency for forum shopping

• Dismisses suit for suppressing facts, violating court orders

Wale IgbintadeJustice Adetayo Aluko of the Federal High Court in Lagos, yesterday, revoked the attempt to place General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL) and its assets under the purported Receiver Manager appointed by the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), Sevi Akinwunmi.

Justice Aluko nullified the order while ruling on the Notice of Preliminary Objection filed by the Chairman of  GHL, Prince Nduka Obaigbena, challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit.Akinwunmi had filed the suit seeking to give effect to the purported receivership over General Hydrocarbons Limited and its assets.

In his ruling, the judge agreed with Obaigbena’s objection that the suit was an abuse of court process because of the prior existence of Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1903/2025 – General Hydrocarbons Limited against AMCON & 3 others.The Court also held that Akinwunmi and his counsel commenced this suit in breach of the clear orders of Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1903/2025, marked September 23, 2025, wherein AMCON and its agents, privies, nominees, etc., were prohibited from appointing or continuing with the appointment of a receiver over General Hydrocarbons Limited and its assets.

The Court further stated that Akinwunmi, having been appointed by AMCON, was an agent of AMCON, and thereby bound by the orders of Justice Lewis-Allagoa in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1903/2025 against AMCON.Justice Aluko also acknowledged that Akinwunmi and his counsel, Bidemi Ademola-Bello (SAN), deliberately suppressed facts in commencing this suit and securing the interim orders against General Hydrocarbons Limited and its assets.

The Court also held that if Akinwunmi and his counsel had disclosed the existence of the prior orders of Justice Lewis-Allagoa in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1903/2025, Justice Aluko would not have granted the interim orders of 24th October 2025.Additionally, the Court reviewed the subject matter and parties in the case before Justice Lewis-Allagoa, as well as the current lawsuit, and concluded that they are identical or very similar.

It found no justification for filing a new case on the same issue (by the same parties) when an earlier substantive suit in the same Court can resolve all the disputes between the parties.On this basis, the Court held that the suit was an abuse of court process, having been commenced in violation of the prior orders of Justice Lewis-Allagoa in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1903/2025.

Justice Aluko also stated that Akinwunmi and his counsel’s actions could undermine the credibility of the judicial process and represent a significant waste of the Court’s time and resources, which should be frowned upon.The judge, therefore, dismissed the suit and set aside its interim orders made on 24th October 2025.In an earlier suit, the court had on September 23, 2025, expressly barred AMCON, its agents, privies, and nominees from appointing or continuing with the appointment of any receiver over General Hydrocarbons or its assets.The ruling marks a significant victory for GHL in the dispute and reinforces the judiciary’s stance against forum shopping, suppression of material facts, and attempts to circumvent valid court orders.

In a separate but related decision delivered on Monday, December 8, 2025, Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa had invalidated the appearance and appointment of senior lawyer Mr. Oluseye Opasanya as counsel for General Hydrocarbons Limited.The judge held that Opasanya’s engagement by a purported receiver was in flagrant violation of existing injunctions.Justice Allagoa had criticised Akinwunmi’s purported appointment of Opasanya, noting that the receiver’s own appointment, said to have been made on September 18, contravened the injunction issued on September 23 restraining AMCON from appointing a receiver.

He emphasised, citing Ngere v. Okuruket, that court orders must be obeyed until discharged or set aside, irrespective of whether parties believe them to be erroneous.The judge also highlighted that AMCON’s counsel had given a personal undertaking on October 22 to comply with the court’s directives, yet filed a fresh suit the very next day seeking to validate the prohibited receiver appointment.

The judge had ordered that neither Opasanya nor any lawyer appointed by the purported receiver may represent the company.“In the affidavit of facts deposed by one Seyi Akinwunmi, the deponent claim to be appointed by the 1st defendant as the receiver of GHL on 18th September, 2025. The Notice of Appointment dated 18th of September is attached to the said affidavit of facts as Exhibit 1. In furtherance of the performance of the deponent’s duty as Receiver Manager by a letter instruction dated 14th November, 2025, the said Receiver Manager appointed by Mr. Kayode Adeluola, SAN, and Oluseye Opasanya, SAN as legal counsel for the plaintiff. That a Notice of Change of counsel was then filed and served.

“In my view, the appointment of Mr. Oluseye Opasanya, SAN and Mr. Kayode Adeluola, SAN as counsel for this plaintiff was inappropriate and offends the law. On the 23rd September 2025, this Honourable Court granted an ex-parte order upon hearing the submissions of Dr. Abiodun Layonu, SAN.

“The pertinent part of the order reads as follows: a)AN ORDER of interim injunction restraining the Defendants either by themselves, or acting through their servants, agents, assigns, privies, affiliates howsoever described, including any person claiming under their authority from taking any steps or continuing with any steps whatsoever against the Applicant or its assets as it pertains to the debt incurred by Atlantic Energy Drilling Concept Nigeria Limited to the 3rd Defendant which led to the deficit in the 3rd Defendant’s books to the tune of US $718,000.00 (Seven Hundred and Eighteen Million United States Dollars) and which was purchased by the 1st Defendant as an Eligible Bank Asset pending the hearing and determination of the motion on Notice in this suit.

“AN ORDER of interim injunction restraining the Defendants either by themselves, or acting through their servants, agents, assigns, privies, affiliates howsoever described including any person claiming under their authority from taking any steps or continuing with any steps whatsoever to enforce any rights against the Applicant or its assets, including but not limited to freezing the accounts of the Applicants, its directors or shareholders, the appointment of a Receiver/Receiver Manager, Asset Manager, recovery agent e.t.c, over the Applicant, the applicants asserts or the assets belonging to the Applicant’s directors or shareholders on the basis of the loan purchase and Limited Servicing Agreement the outstanding Exposure Tripartite Deed, the intercreditor and security sharing Agreement, or any other agreement related to the 1st Defendant’s purchase of the Jd Defendant’s non-performing loan against the Applicants, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on Notice in this suit.”

The ruling stated further that, “the position of the Law is clear on orders of the court must be obeyed. In the case of NGERE V. OKURUKET (2014) 11 NWLR (PT 1417) S.C. 147 P. 173 PARAGRAPHS E-F. The Supreme Court held: “The Judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction subsists until upset on appeal. While a Judgment subsists every person affected by it or against whom an order is made must obey it even if it appears wrong.”

“It is noted that during the proceedings of 22nd October 2025 before this Honourable Court, this court directed that its interim orders made on 23rd September 2025 would remain in effect until set aside. The 1st and 2nd Defendant’s counsel, Mr. Bidemi Ademola-Bello SAN, equally undertook to abide by the decision of this Honourable Court. A certified true copy of the record of proceedings of this Honourable Court on 22nd October 2025 was attached with as Exhibits “C”.“Therefore, I agree with counsel for the Plaintiff Mr. Abiodun Layonu SAN that the appearance of Mr. Oluseye Opasanya SAN at the proceedings of the Court purportedly being appointed by a receiver on the 26th November 2025 was an act carried out in violation of the valid and subsisting orders of this court made in this suit on 23rd September 2025 and re-affirmed during the proceedings of 22nd October 2025.”

Together, both rulings underscored the judiciary’s intolerance for procedural abuses, conflicting representations, and attempts to subvert the authority of subsisting court orders in high-stakes commercial litigation.