In a landmark ruling, Justice Dehinde Dipeolu of the Federal High Court, Lagos, has overturned the Mareva injunction that previously froze the assets of General Hydrocarbons Ltd (GHL) and its directors, declaring the order improperly obtained and legally unsustainable.
The decision came after GHL’s lead counsel, Abiodun Layonu, SAN, successfully argued that the injunction violated an existing order issued by Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa in Suit No. 1953—a crucial ruling that was allegedly concealed by First Bank of Nigeria and FBNQUEST LTD, the applicants who sought the asset freeze.
Court Condemns First Bank’s Conduct, Cites “Suppression of Facts”
In his judgment, Justice Dipeolu determined that First Bank and its co-applicants failed to disclose the pre-existing court ruling, thereby misleading the court into granting the Mareva injunction. The court described this omission as an intentional suppression of facts, a legal misstep that tainted the entire case against GHL.
As a result, the court had no option but to invalidate the asset-freezing order, ruling in favor of GHL and its directors, who had contended that the injunction was obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation.
GHL Strikes Back with $1 Billion Lawsuit Against First Bank
With the asset freeze overturned, GHL’s directors have launched legal proceedings in international courts, seeking $1 billion each in damages from First Bank for defamation and the wrongful freezing of their accounts.
Furthermore, GHL has filed a formal complaint with the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee, accusing First Bank’s legal representatives, Babajide Koku, SAN, and Victor Ogude, SAN, of unprofessional conduct. The company alleges that the lawyers knowingly misled the court by withholding critical judicial information.
Implications for Corporate and Banking Litigation
Legal experts have described this ruling as a watershed moment for corporate litigation in Nigeria, reinforcing the need for full disclosure and ethical legal practice in asset-freezing cases. The court’s firm stance against procedural misconduct underscores the growing judicial intolerance for banking institutions leveraging ex-parte applications to secure injunctive relief based on incomplete facts.
With potential far-reaching consequences for First Bank and its legal team, this case is set to shape future corporate legal battles and the responsibilities of financial institutions in commercial disputes.
Stay Informed, Stay Ahead with The Ameh News
Discover more from Ameh News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
