Last Updated on 15 January 2025 by Naijadazz

In a high-stakes financial showdown that has gripped Nigeria’s corporate and legal circles, First Bank of Nigeria Limited has taken General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL), a company tied to media mogul Nduka Obaigbena, to court over a staggering $225.8 million debt. The case, which has seen assets frozen, accusations of financial misconduct, and a war of words in the media, raises critical questions about corporate governance, debt recovery, and the role of the judiciary in resolving complex financial disputes.
The Background: A Commercial Transaction Gone Sour
At the heart of this dispute is a commercial transaction between First Bank and GHL. According to court documents and public statements, First Bank extended several credit facilities to GHL for the development of Oil Mining Lease (OML) assets. These facilities were backed by robust loan agreements, with clearly defined obligations and security arrangements. However, the relationship between the two parties soured when First Bank alleged that GHL had breached the terms of the agreement, including the diversion of proceeds from crude oil sales.
First Bank claims it requested the appointment of an independent operator to ensure transparency and protect the interests of all stakeholders. However, GHL allegedly rejected this request and instead demanded additional funding. When First Bank refused to provide further financing without compliance with its terms, GHL initiated arbitration proceedings, further complicating the dispute.
The Legal Battle: Court Orders and Mareva Injunctions
The dispute took a dramatic turn on December 30, 2024, when the Federal High Court in Lagos, presided over by Justice D.I. Dipeolu, issued an ex-parte order freezing the assets and accounts of GHL across all commercial banks in Nigeria. The court also granted a Mareva Injunction, a legal tool designed to prevent defendants from dissipating assets during litigation. This injunction applies to all commercial banks in Nigeria, including Guaranty Trust Bank, Access Bank, and Zenith Bank, and restricts GHL and its associated entities from transferring or dissipating assets such as crude stock, insurance policies, shares, and receivables.
The court order also targeted the personal accounts of Nduka Obaigbena, his wife Efe Damilola Obaigbena, and his sister Olabisi Eka Obaigbena, linking their Bank Verification Numbers (BVNs) to the freeze. Additionally, the court directed several defendants, including VITOL SA, Mercuria Energy Trading SA, and Trafigura PTE Limited, to disclose the quantity of products lifted from OML 120 since production began.
First Bank’s Perspective: A Commitment to Good Governance
In a public statement, First Bank sought to clarify its position and counter what it described as “sponsored false narratives” in the media. The bank emphasized its commitment to good governance and transparency, stating that it had fulfilled its obligations under the loan agreements and had acted within the law to protect its interests.
First Bank accused GHL of breaching the terms of the agreement, including the diversion of proceeds and refusal to appoint an independent operator. The bank also highlighted GHL’s initiation of arbitration proceedings, which it claims are unrelated to the subsequent credit facilities at the center of its court case. First Bank denied any abuse of court process and reiterated its commitment to supporting legitimate businesses while ensuring that borrowers repay their debts.
GHL’s Historical Context: A Controversial Past
The case against GHL is not the first time the company has been embroiled in controversy. In 2015, court documents from a separate case revealed that GHL received N670 million from the office of the former National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki, as part of the arms deal scandal. The funds were allegedly paid for “energy consulting,” raising questions about the company’s financial dealings and its connections to high-profile individuals.
This historical context adds a layer of complexity to the current lawsuit, as it raises concerns about GHL’s financial practices and its relationship with powerful figures in Nigeria. It also underscores the challenges faced by financial institutions in managing high-risk loans and recovering debts from corporate entities with controversial histories.
Comparing the Narratives: Our First Publication vs. First Bank’s Press Release
While both our first publication and First Bank’s public statement agree on the existence of a debt dispute and the legal actions taken, they differ in their focus and tone.
Our First Publication:
- Provides a factual report on the court order and the Mareva Injunction.
- Lists all defendants, including Nduka Obaigbena, his family members, and subsidiaries/sister companies.
- Offers historical context, linking GHL to the 2015 arms deal scandal.
First Bank Statement:
- Focuses on clarifying its position and countering media narratives.
- Emphasizes its commitment to good governance, transparency, and legal processes.
- Highlights GHL’s refusal to appoint an independent operator and its initiation of arbitration proceedings.
Our first publication provides a neutral and detailed account of the legal developments, while the First Bank statement is a defensive and assertive clarification aimed at protecting the bank’s reputation and reaffirming its commitment to ethical practices.
Broader Implications: Corporate Governance and Debt Recovery
This case has far-reaching implications for Nigeria’s financial and legal systems:
Use of Mareva Injunctions:
- The case highlights the growing use of Mareva Injunctions in Nigeria to secure claims in high-stakes financial disputes. This legal tool is crucial for preventing defendants from dissipating assets during litigation, ensuring that creditors can recover their funds.
Corporate Governance:
- The dispute raises critical questions about corporate governance and the enforcement of financial regulations in Nigeria. It underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in corporate financial practices, especially in cases involving large sums of money and high-profile individuals.
Debt Recovery Challenges:
- The case illustrates the challenges faced by financial institutions in recovering large debts from corporate entities, particularly when there is a risk of asset dissipation. It also demonstrates the judiciary’s willingness to provide robust remedies to creditors in complex financial disputes.
Precedent for Future Cases:
- The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how Nigerian courts handle high-stakes debt recovery disputes in the future. It may also influence the use of Mareva Injunctions and other legal tools in similar cases.
A Landmark Case with Far-Reaching Implications
The legal battle between First Bank of Nigeria Limited and General Hydrocarbons Limited is a landmark case that underscores the challenges of debt recovery, corporate governance, and judicial processes in Nigeria. With $225.8 million at stake, the case has significant financial and legal implications, not only for the parties involved but also for Nigeria’s broader corporate and financial landscape.
As the case unfolds, it will be closely watched by legal experts, financial institutions, and the public. The outcome could shape the future of debt recovery processes, corporate accountability, and the use of legal remedies in Nigeria. For now, the freeze on GHL’s assets and the ongoing legal proceedings serve as a stark reminder of the importance of transparency, accountability, and good governance in corporate financial practices.