Obaigbena vs. Otedola: GHL and Others Seek to Lift Asset Freezing Order by First Bank

General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL) has requested a Federal High Court in Lagos to lift the Mareva injunction (asset freezing order) granted by Justice Deinde Dipeolu on December 30, 2024, which restricted the release of assets and funds belonging to GHL, its subsidiaries, related entities, and its shareholders. The injunction was part of a legal action initiated by First Bank of Nigeria (FBN) to recover an alleged loan of $225.8 million, which the bank claims was obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment of material facts.

The order affected not only GHL but also its shareholder directors, including Nduka Obaigbena, Efe Damilola Obaigbena, and Olabisi Eka Obaigbena, as well as several entities related to the company such as GHL 121 Ltd, Aimonte Nigeria Ltd, Calidin Global Resources Ltd, CESL Oyo Production BBC Ltd, CESL Oyo Production O&M Ltd, and VITOL SA, among others.

Arguments for Lifting the Order

The attorneys representing GHL and the other defendants argue that the Mareva injunction was obtained without full disclosure, particularly the fact that there is an ongoing arbitration between First Bank and GHL concerning the alleged loan default. Abiodun Layonu, SAN, who represents GHL, claimed that First Bank failed to disclose a prior order issued by Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa in an earlier case that restrained the bank from taking any enforcement action related to the loan until arbitration proceedings were concluded. According to Layonu, First Bank had been aware of this restraining order but chose not to disclose it when seeking the Mareva injunction, which constitutes an abuse of the court process.

Layonu argued that had the court been made aware of the earlier court order, it would not have granted the asset freezing order. He emphasized the financial harm the order had caused to GHL and its operations.

Defence for the Bank

In response, Victor Ogude, SAN, representing First Bank, argued that the bank had provided all relevant facts in its application and affidavit supporting the injunction. He pointed out that the parties involved in the current case before Justice Dipeolu were different from those in the earlier case handled by Justice Lewis-Allagoa, and that nothing in the earlier order restrained First Bank from seeking judicial intervention under separate agreements or pursuing different actions regarding the loan dispute.

Ogude asserted that First Bank’s actions were legitimate, and the bank had the constitutional right to seek redress for the financial loss it claims to have incurred due to GHL’s alleged fraudulent activities. He also clarified that the Obaigbena family members, who are shareholders and directors of GHL, were named in the current suit because they hold positions in the company, not because they had personally guaranteed the loan.

Next Steps

After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Dipeolu reserved ruling on the matter and stated that the date for the ruling would be communicated to the parties involved. The decision will determine whether the Mareva injunction will be lifted or maintained.

This case highlights ongoing disputes surrounding financial agreements, corporate governance, and the legal processes that govern commercial transactions in Nigeria, especially in cases involving large sums of money and complex corporate structures.