A scandal has erupted over the controversial orders made by Justice Dehinde Dipeolu on October 25, 2025, in the ongoing legal dispute between Nestoil and FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited. The case, filed under Suit No. FHC/L/CS/2127/2025, has sparked controversy as the First Charge Holders—Glencore Energy UK Limited, Fidelity Bank Plc, Mauritius Commercial Bank, and African Finance Corporation—mount pressure to have the Ex-parte orders reversed.
The First Charge Holders claim the orders, which granted Nestoil the ability to appoint a receiver/manager over the assets of the Defendants, were obtained through misrepresentation. They argue that these orders unlawfully hinder their access to manage their financial interests, particularly concerning the 2nd Defendant, Neconde Energy Limited. The Senior Lenders filed an application on November 6, 2025, seeking to join the suit and have the orders set aside.
In a detailed 335-page submission, the Senior Lenders stated that the Ex-parte orders were unlawfully granted, and they accused the Plaintiffs of misrepresentation. They also sought the removal of Mr. Abubakar Sulu-Gambari, the Receiver/Manager appointed by the Plaintiff. According to the affidavit filed by the Senior Lenders, Neconde’s interest in OML 42, which had already been pledged as collateral to secure loans from the First Charge Holders, was improperly included in the Plaintiff’s motion.
Despite this, Justice Dipeolu granted orders against Neconde’s assets, including the OML 42 interest, even though no consent was given by the First Charge Holders. Moreover, the Common Term Agreement presented by the Plaintiffs did not authorize any additional charge on the 2nd Defendant’s assets. This has raised significant legal concerns about the legitimacy of the orders granted by the judge.
The controversy deepens as the Plaintiffs’ motion, which included orders for police, Navy, and DSS involvement, directed the seizure of Neconde’s assets, including crude oil and its interest in OML 42. These actions have led to accusations that the orders were overly harsh and aimed at destroying the Defendants’ business operations.
Legal experts have cited previous Supreme Court rulings, such as the ECOBANK vs. Honeywell Flour Mills case, to highlight that such Ex-parte Orders should not be granted without proper justification. Critics argue that Justice Dipeolu’s actions, including restricting the personal bank accounts of Nestoil’s directors, may constitute an abuse of power, potentially subjecting him to scrutiny by the National Judicial Council.
The case is now drawing attention for its implications on judicial discretion, with growing concerns over the use of Ex-parte Orders in commercial disputes. With accusations of bias and recklessness, many are calling for a thorough investigation into Justice Dipeolu’s handling of the case.
