Alleged $1bn Debt: Appeal Court Adjourns Nestoil-Neconde Case Amid Fierce Counsel Dispute

Wale Igbintade

Proceedings at the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, were brought to an abrupt halt yesterday after a dispute erupted over which lawyers were authorised to represent Nestoil Limited and Neconde Energy Limited in the appeal lodged by First Trustees Limited and FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited against a ruling of Justice Daniel Osiagor.

Justice Osiagor had on November 20, 2015, vacated the Mareva injunction that froze the companies’ assets and those of their directors over an alleged $1 billion debt claim.

The judge held that the ex parte order had lapsed after hearing arguments that the order became spent 14 days after the filing of a motion to set it aside, in line with the Federal High Court Rules.

The court also stated the decision to transfer the case to a new judge was not subject to appeal and stressed that proceedings could not be stayed merely because filings at the Court of Appeal referred to the previous judge.

According to the lower court, “There is no longer a subsisting ex-parte order, having elapsed 14 days from the Motion on Notice challenging it. As the order has expired, the arguments of parties affected by the ex-parte order are now mute or academic.”

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

Justice Yargata Nimpar of the Court of Appeal granted the request and immediately reversed earlier steps that halted the receivership, thereby clearing the way for occupation of Nestoil’s headquarters.

The appellate court also barred interference with the receiver’s work and suspended further proceedings at the lower court.

Hearing on the substantive motion was fixed for December 4, 2025.

However, when the appeal was yesterday, confusion arose after the court directed counsel to announce appearances.

Babajide Koku, SAN, appeared for the appellants, with Kunle Ogunba, SAN.

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

Additionally, Dr. Muiz Banire, SAN, and Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN- who represented Nestoil and Neconde 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 and urged the court to clarify and determine the appropriate counsel for each party.

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

Chief Olanipekun, SAN, expressed shock at the conflict, stating:

“I am embarrassed. In my 49 years of practice, I have never had a dispute over representation with any lawyer in court.”

He recounted the circumstances that led to the appeal and accused the appellants of creating confusion by serving processes on counsel allegedly appointed by the receiver, who were not the counsel of record at the lower court.

Olanipekun maintained that since no application challenging his representation had been heard or served on him, he remained the recognised counsel for the second respondent (Neconde Energy Limited).

Presiding Justice Yargata Nimpar held that the issue of legal representation must be resolved before any further steps could be taken. In a bench ruling, she 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. The applications, which are not yet ripe for hearing, have now been filed.

“Counsels 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.”

When Kunle Ogunba, SAN, drew the court’s attention to several social media reports on the case, Justice Nimpar warned sternly:

“Anyone who thinks they can go out and publish false narratives in an attempt to intimidate the court is wasting their time.

“We took an oath before God Almighty, and we are guided by Him. Our interest is justice and nothing else.”