by George Ozalla
The Supreme Court has directed that the long-running debt dispute involving oil services group Nestoil Limited and its affiliate Neconde Energy Limited return to the Court of Appeal for review of legal representation, following procedural concerns raised in the case. The ruling comes after years of litigation over approximately $2 billion owed to a consortium of Nigerian banks.
The dispute began in late 2025 when Nestoil and Neconde sought substantial loans from a group of banks led by FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited and First Trustees Limited. Delays in repayment prompted the banks to initiate enforcement actions, alleging that the companies and their principal promoters, including Ernest Azudialu‑Obiejesi and Nnenna Obiejesi, defaulted on their obligations.
In October 2025, the Federal High Court granted a Mareva injunction freezing the companies’ assets, bank accounts, and shares across more than 20 financial institutions. A court-appointed receiver-manager was authorised to take possession of Nestoil’s headquarters on Victoria Island and other assets linked to the loans. Police personnel were deployed to enforce the order.
Nestoil and Neconde challenged the injunction, filing motions in the lower court and appealing procedural decisions. At the Court of Appeal, parts of the receivership orders were restored, but disagreements over the companies’ legal representatives led to adjournments to clarify who is authorised to act for Nestoil and Neconde.
The Supreme Court’s recent judgment emphasised that procedural and representation issues must be resolved before the appeal can proceed, leaving the underlying debt enforcement and receivership actions in legal flux.
Reports circulating in some media outlets claim that the companies are seeking refunds from their legal advisers over the outcome of the Supreme Court ruling. These allegations, including the amounts cited, have not been independently verified, and some of the lawyers mentioned have publicly disputed the claims.
The case underscores the complexity of enforcing large corporate debts in Nigeria, highlighting the interaction between judicial oversight, legal representation, and corporate financial obligations. With appeals and interlocutory applications still active, the matter remains a central reference point for commercial litigation and debt recovery practices in the country.
The crisis traces back to the companies’ attempts to secure significant loans for operations and expansion, subsequent defaults, and the banks’ efforts to recover their funds through the courts, which set in motion years of litigation across multiple judicial levels.
