FBNQuest Vs Nestoil: Arguments on Legal Representation Stalls Proceedings

A dispute among lawyers in court today on the authorized legal representation of Nestoil Limited and Neconde Energy Limited stalled proceedings in the appeal filed by FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited and First Trustees Limited against the ruling of the Federal High Court, Lagos.

At the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, Justice Yargata Nimpar, who presided over the three-member panel directed parties to respond to the applications challenging legal representation before the next adjourned date, January 15, 2026.

On November 20, 2025, Justice Daniel Osiagor of the Federal High Court had vacated the Mareva injunction that had frozen the assets of Nestoil and those of their directors over an alleged $1 billion debt claim.

The judge held that the ex parte order granted by his brother judge had lapsed after 14 days and was no longer in effect.

Dissatisfied with the ruling, FBNQuest Merchant Bank and First Trustees approached the Court of Appeal and, in an exparte motion filed on November 26, 2025, sought a “restorative injunction” to undo all steps taken pursuant to the high court’s ruling.

Justice Nimpar granted the request on Monday Dec, 1st, clearing the way for the repossession of Nestoil’s Lagos head office.

The appeal court also barred any interference with the receiver’s work and suspended further proceedings at the lower court after which hearing on the substantive motion was fixed for December 4, 2025.

When the appeal was called today, confusion broke out after the court directed counsel to announce their appearances.

Babajide Koku (SAN) appeared for the appellants alongside Kunle Ogunba (SAN).

The problem arose when Ayoola Ajayi (SAN) announced appearance for the first respondent (Nestoil Limited), while Ayo Olorunfemi (SAN) announced appearance for the second respondent (Neconde Energy Limited).

In addition, Muiz Banire, (SAN), and Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) —who represented Nestoil and Neconde respectively at the lower court, also announced appearances for the two firms.

Chinonye Obiagwu (SAN), and Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN) appeared for the third and fourth defendants respectively, while Oluwakemi Balogun (SAN) appeared as an interested party.

Ajayi (SAN) argued that it was clear there was a dispute over who was properly authorised to represent the two firms, urging the court to address the issue and provide direction on the appropriate counsel for each party.

READ ALSO: Appeal Court Affirms Judgment Barring VIO From Stopping, Impounding Vehicles

Responding, Banire, (SAN) maintained that there was no challenge to his representation and that he remained counsel of record from the lower court.

On his part, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) expressed shock at the disagreement, saying: “I am embarrassed. In my 49 years of practice, I have never had a dispute over representation with any lawyer in court.”

He narrated the circumstances leading to the appeal, tracing them to the ruling of Justice Osiagor.

He accused the appellants of deliberately creating confusion by serving court processes on counsel allegedly appointed by the receiver who were not counsel of record at the lower court.

Olanipekun argued that since the court had not heard any application challenging his representation, he remained the recognised counsel for the second respondent (Neconde Energy Limited).

He added that he had not been served with any application challenging his role.

Addressing the situation, Justice Nimpar held that the issue of legal representation must be resolved first before the court could proceed.

In a bench ruling, Justice Nimpar stated “There is an obvious conflict regarding the applications for change of counsel filed on behalf of the first and second respondents.

“Those applications must be taken first to resolve the issue of legal representation before the court can proceed with any other application. Those other applications filed are not yet ripe for hearing.

“Counsel are directed to respond to the applications before the next adjourned date, which is 15 January 2026. The court will not be sitting next week due to the mid-year or end-of-year programme in Abuja, after which the court will proceed on Christmas break.

“When the court resumes in January, it will be prepared to address all pending matters with full energy.”