The vacation court of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory has declined Keystone Bank’s attempt to extend an ex parte Mareva injunction that previously froze several accounts linked to TAK Logistics Limited over a N24.9 billion loan dispute.
The order, originally granted on July 16, 2025, by Hon. Justice A. Akobi, expired by its own terms seven days later and was not renewed by the vacation judge, Chizoba N. Oji, who found no compelling justification in law to entertain the matter as presented by the Claimant/Applicant.
This marks a pivotal turn in the matter that attracted public discourse, particularly concerning TAK Agro Plc and its chairman, Mr. Thomas Akoh Etuh.
Contrary to media insinuations, investigations revealed that TAK Agro Plc was not a party to the credit transaction at the heart of the dispute.
The N24.9 billion loan was granted in January 2021 solely to TAK Logistics Limited under the Central Bank of Nigeria’s Real Sector Support Facility/Differentiated Cash Reserve Requirement (RSSF/DCRR) Scheme, with Keystone Bank acting as the financial intermediary.
It was revealed that TAK Agro Plc had no contractual obligation to Keystone Bank that had arisen in this matter.
Furthermore, Mr. Etuh, who previously held a non-executive role on TAK Logistics’ board, had disengaged from that position well before the dispute arose.
Neither TAK Agro Plc nor Mr. Etuh had any involvement in the administration or disbursement of the said facility.
Etuh wondered why the bank chose to join both parties in a dispute with their customer for a loan that had yet to reach maturity date.
Documents revealed that since the facility’s disbursement, TAK Logistics has remained a responsible borrower.
As of July 2025, the company said it had already repaid N9.78 billion, approximately 40 per cent of the loan.
The facility has a tenor of seven years, with final maturity not due until 2028.
Despite these facts, Keystone Bank approached the court ex parte, portraying the entire sum as immediately due and payable, an assertion that misled the court and resulted in the initial ex parte order.
