• Revokes alleged indefinite Mareva orders, restores control of assets to Nestoil
• Receiver/Manager to withdraw immediately from continued occupation of premises
• Affirms statutory power of Chief Judge to assign cases
In a major legal victory for Nestoil Limited and its affiliates, the Federal High Court in Lagos on Thursday, November 20, 2025, vacated the Mareva injunction that had frozen the company’s assets and those of its directors over an alleged $1 billion debt claim.
Justice Daniel Osiagor issued the order following a transfer of the case from Justice Dehinde Dipeolu to his court.
The court declared that the disputed ex parte order had lapsed and was no longer in effect after hearing arguments that the order became spent 14 days after the filing of a motion to set it aside, in accordance with the Federal High Court Rules.
Justice Dipeolu had, on October 22, 2025, granted a far-reaching Mareva injunction restraining Nestoil, its affiliate Neconde Energy Limited, and the company’s promoters, Dr Ernest Azudialu-Obiejesi and Nnenna Obiejesi, from tampering with funds, shares, and other assets in over 20 financial institutions.
The order had also empowered First Trustees Limited and FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited, acting for a consortium of creditor banks, to take possession of Nestoil’s assets under receivership.
At Thursday’s proceedings, Babajide Koku, SAN, appeared for the plaintiffs; Dr Muiz Banire, SAN, represented Nestoil; Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, leading Mr Bode Olanipekun, SAN, appeared for Neconde Energy Limited; while Chinonye Obiagwu, SAN, and Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, represented the third and fourth defendants respectively. Counsel Olufemi Oyewole appeared for the parties seeking to be joined.
Addressing the court, Koku informed the bench that the plaintiffs had filed a Notice of Appeal challenging Justice Dipeolu’s November 7, 2025, decision to recuse himself from the case.
He noted that the record of appeal had been transmitted and urged the court to halt proceedings pending the appeal.
Responding, Banire argued that filing a Notice of Appeal does not automatically stay proceedings. Citing Order 32 Rule 1 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2025, he submitted that the court retains inherent power to make preservative orders where necessary.
Chief Olanipekun, SAN, highlighted that under Section 22(1) of the Federal High Court Act, the Chief Judge has statutory authority to transfer any matter at any stage, and such transfers are not subject to appeal.
He further emphasised that once the matter is transferred, hearings must commence de novo, and previous rulings cannot bind the new court.
He stressed that justice must balance the interests of the plaintiffs, defendants, and the State. Citing several authorities, Olanipekun added that the Supreme Court has repeatedly warned against indiscriminate grants of Mareva injunctions capable of suffocating businesses and eroding years of investment.
Ogunwumiju, SAN, and Obiagwu, SAN, submitted that since the matter was restarting afresh, the ex parte injunction could not survive the transfer. Ogunwumiju specifically noted that under the rules, an ex parte order automatically lapses 14 days after a defendant files a motion to discharge it.
He cited judicial authorities affirming that ex parte orders—particularly Mareva orders—are temporary emergency measures that cannot subsist indefinitely, and that prolonging them violates Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees fair hearing.
Obiagwu further argued that the defendants filed a motion dated October 30 to set aside the order, making the injunction spent by law.
He contended that the ex parte Mareva injunction obtained by FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited and First Trustees Limited against Nestoil Limited and Neconde Energy Limited had lapsed by operation of law as of Friday, November 14, 2025, under Order 26 Rule 10(1) and (3) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019.
After hearing oral arguments, Justice Osiagor ruled that the ex parte Mareva injunction had expired 14 days after the filing of a motion to set it aside, rendering any arguments based on the order academic.
The court also noted that the decision to transfer the matter to a new judge is not subject to appeal and emphasised that proceedings would not be stayed simply because filings at the Court of Appeal referenced the previous judge.
The order reads in part: “The decision that transferred this matter is not appealable. This Court will not stay proceedings where filings at the Court of Appeal refer to Dipeolu J. and not Osiagor J.
“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.
“The case is adjourned to 25th November, 2025, for Motion for Joinder and to 12th December, 2025, for hearing of pending applications.”
The ruling effectively restores Nestoil Limited’s control over its assets and represents a major procedural victory for the company and its affiliates in the ongoing dispute with FBNQuest Merchant Bank and First Trustees Limited.
