A legal scandal has emerged following the controversial orders granted by Justice Dehinde Dipeolu on October 25, 2025, in the ongoing litigation between Nestoil and FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited, under Suit No. FHC/L/CS/2127/2025. The dispute has taken a dramatic turn as the First Charge Holders—Glencore Energy UK Limited, Fidelity Bank Plc, Mauritius Commercial Bank, and African Finance Corporation—seek to have the Ex-parte orders set aside.

The First Charge Holders contend that the Ex-parte orders, which allowed Nestoil to appoint a receiver/manager over the Defendants’ assets, were obtained through misrepresentation. They argue that these orders unlawfully hinder their ability to manage their financial interests, particularly with regard to the 2nd Defendant, Neconde Energy Limited. On November 6, 2025, the First Charge Holders filed a motion to join the suit, requesting the court to vacate the orders issued on October 25.

In a comprehensive 335-page affidavit, the Senior Lenders assert that the Ex-parte orders were granted improperly, accusing the Plaintiffs of withholding key information from the court. They also called for the removal of Mr. Abubakar Sulu-Gambari, who was appointed as receiver/manager by the Plaintiff. According to the Senior Lenders’ affidavit, Neconde’s interest in OML 42 had already been used as collateral for loans from the First Charge Holders. However, the Plaintiffs sought to include this asset in their motion without obtaining proper consent from the First Charge Holders.

Despite these claims, Justice Dipeolu issued orders that impacted Neconde’s assets, including its interest in OML 42, even though the First Charge Holders did not authorize any further charges on these assets. The decision has raised serious questions about the legal basis for the orders, particularly as there was no formal documentation to support the charges sought by the Plaintiffs.

The situation has escalated as the Plaintiffs also sought approval to involve law enforcement agencies such as the police, Navy, and DSS to enforce the orders. These actions, which included the seizure of crude oil and other assets related to Neconde’s interest in OML 42, have been met with widespread criticism. Legal experts argue that these measures are disproportionate and could severely harm the Defendants’ business operations.

The controversy has drawn comparisons to previous Supreme Court rulings, such as the 2018 ECOBANK vs. Honeywell Flour Mills case, which cautioned against granting Ex-parte asset-freezing orders without clear justification. In that case, the Court ruled that such orders should only be granted if there is evidence that the defendant is likely to dissipate or conceal assets.

As concerns mount over the fairness of Justice Dipeolu’s actions, calls are growing for the National Judicial Council to investigate the matter. Allegations of bias and judicial overreach suggest that the Ex-parte orders may have been granted improperly, potentially damaging the Defendants’ business interests. The case is expected to become a key reference point in the discussion of judicial discretion and the limits of Ex-parte orders in commercial disputes in Nigeria.