The Supreme Court has reserved judgment in an appeal filed by Neconde Energy Limited seeking to overturn a Court of Appeal order that restored control of the company’s assets and operations to a receiver-manager appointed by a consortium of lenders.

Neconde Energy Limited is the appellant in the matter, while the respondents are FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited, First Trustees Limited, Nestoil Limited, Ernest Azudialu‑Obiejesi and Nnena Azudialu‑Obiejesi.

A five-member panel of the apex court, headed by Justice Lawal Garba, adjourned the matter for judgment after hearing arguments from parties and the exchange of briefs by counsel.

Lead counsel to Neconde, Wole Olanipekun, SAN argued that the interim restrictive orders granted by the Court of Appeal in November 2025 were still in force, preventing company staff from accessing corporate facilities and operations.

Olanipekun told the court that the appellate court acted “without jurisdiction” in granting the orders, insisting that there was no valid record of appeal before the court to warrant the proceedings.

According to him, the process leading to the order was fundamentally defective and ought to be set aside.

“My Lords, I am on my knees because of the peculiar nature and circumstances of this appeal,” the senior advocate pleaded while urging the apex court to hear the appeal .

Olanipekun submitted that the appellate court failed to consider several issues raised by Neconde and exceeded its jurisdiction by effectively determining who should represent the company in court.

He maintained that established legal principles recognise a litigant’s constitutional right to be represented by counsel of its choice and urged the Supreme Court to set aside the decision.

Some Respondents urge dismissal Others support the appeal.

Counsel representing the Receiver Ameh Ogie, adopted his brief of argument and asked the court to dismiss the appeal. Similarly, Counsel representing the first respondent, Victor Ogude SAN, also adopted his brief of argument and asked the court to dismiss the appeal same with the counsel for the second respondent, M. B. Ganiyu, who was appointed by the Receiver.

The other respondents represented by Chino Obiagwu SAN & Kehinde Ogunwumiju SAN aligned with the submissions of the appellant seeking the apex court to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal and to allow the appeal.

Counsel to Nestoil Limited aligned with Olanipekun’s submissions, contending that the notice of appeal was never properly served, a condition he said was necessary to activate the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.

The appeal, instituted by Neconde Energy, is part of the protracted legal battle involving the companies, their promoters, and a consortium of lenders over alleged debts exceeding $2 billion and related liabilities estimated at over N430 billion.

After taking arguments from parties, the Supreme Court said a date for judgment would be communicated to counsel.

The court also directed that the cross-appeal would abide by the outcome of the substantive appeal.

The dispute stems from debt recovery proceedings instituted by lenders, including FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited and First Trustees Limited, against Nestoil and Neconde Energy over financing arrangements tied to oil assets and operations.

In October 2025, the Federal High Court in Lagos granted an ex parte Mareva injunction freezing the companies’ assets, bank accounts and shares across more than 20 financial institutions.

However, the companies challenged the order, arguing that it automatically lapsed after 14 days under the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules once a motion to discharge it was filed.

On November 20, 2025, Justice Daniel Osiagor held that the ex parte order had expired by operation of law and was no longer subsisting.

The dispute later shifted to the question of who had authority to represent the companies in court following the appointment of a receiver-manager.

In January 2026, the Court of Appeal disqualified Olanipekun and Muiz Banire from representing Neconde and Nestoil respectively, holding that the companies’ boards lacked powers to appoint counsel after the receivership took effect.

But in a subsequent ruling, the Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s decision, restoring the companies’ right to retain counsel of their choice while challenging the validity of the receivership itself.

In the lead judgment delivered by Justice Mohammed Baba Idris, the apex court described it as a “legal anomaly” for lawyers appointed by the receiver-manager to simultaneously represent the companies whose interests were being contested.

The court held that permitting such representation created a clear conflict of interest and undermined the companies’ right to independent legal representation.

The substantive issues surrounding the debt claims and receivership remain pending before the lower courts.