The Supreme Court in Abuja, sitting on Monday with a panel led by Justice Inyang Okoro, directed all parties to return to the Court of Appeal for a determination on the dispute over legal representation. The apex court instructed that the outcome be reported back on January 26, 2026.
Justices Jauro, Sankey, Adumehin and Sadiq Umar, all justices, aligned with and supported the ruling delivered by the presiding justice.
In its remarks, the Supreme Court firmly warned counsel that in debt recovery cases, the proper course was to encourage repayment of outstanding obligations rather than pursuing what it described as ‘needless appeals’ or ‘applications.’
The appeal before the court was instituted by Nestoil, Neconde, as well as their promoters, Ernest Obiejesi and Nnenna Obiejesi.
Chief Olanipekun (SAN), announced appearance for Neconde, while Mr Muiz Banire (SAN), appeared for Nestoil. However, their authority and competence were contested by Ayo Olorunfemi (SAN), who led Ms Ame Ogie for Neconde, and Mr Ayoola Ajayi (SAN), who led Mr MB Ganiyu for Nestoil.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court faces backlash over six-month delay of Rivers emergency case
Ms Chinonye Obiagwu (SAN), represented Mr Ernest Azudialu-Obiejesi, while Mr Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN), led mr Ademola Abimbola (SAN), and Ms Chikasolu Ojukwu (SAN), in appearing for Nnenna Obiejesi.
Also present in court was the receiver/manager, Mr. Abubakar Sulu-Gambari (SAN).
FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited and First Trustees were represented by Mr Babajide Koku (SAN); Mr Victor Ogude (SAN); and Mr Omosanya Popoola (SAN), who led Mr Toheeb Ipaye, Mr Kamaal Fagbemi, Mr Kehinde Wilkey and Mr Buchi Ofulue.
Context is king
Nestoil and Neconde, top Nigerian oil & energy firms, are embroiled in a massive debt recovery dispute with a consortium of banks, including FBNQuest Merchant Bank and First Trustees Ltd, over an alleged $1 billion-1.3 billion and N430 billion debt claim.
In October 2025, a Federal High Court in Lagos granted a Mareva injunction (asset freeze) and authorised the appointment of a receiver/manager to take over Nestoil and Neconde’s assets and interest in assets such as OML 42 due to the alleged debt. Police and security agencies were ordered to assist enforcement, leading to the sealing of Nestoil’s Lagos headquarters.
The companies challenged the orders, alleging bias and judicial misconduct by the initial judge. They filed petitions at the National Judicial Council (NJC) and the Chief Judge of the High Court, which stalled proceedings.
Later, the case was transferred to a different Federal High Court judge, who ruled that the Mareva injunction had lapsed and vacated the asset-freeze order, which was a major legal gain for Nestoil/Neconde.
Despite that victory, appeal proceedings have been halted or complicated by disputes over which lawyers can represent Nestoil/Neconde. At times the Court of Appeal reinstated some receivership actions, and the receiver has even repossessed the company’s headquarters on at least one occasion.
READ ALSO: Maryam Sanda Maryam to face death sentence, Supreme Court rules, nullifies Tinubu’s pardon
The case has generated controversy, with media reports alleging attempts to influence the judiciary, including claims of proposals to reassign the matter to a ‘more favorable’ judge.
This is one of Nigeria’s largest commercial litigation disputes of recent years, involving multi-billion-dollar claims, judicial conduct questions, and competing court orders.
The legal status continues to evolve, with proceedings in both the Federal High Court and Court of Appeal — and will significantly affect Nestoil and Neconde’s business operations and creditor rights, experts say.
Though there are several credible Nigerian judges, questions have often been raised about the conduct of judicial officers, including judges, especially when handling cases involving huge sums of money.
“The tradition of Nigerian law is largely to equate judicial powers with the jurisdiction of courts to both adjudicate over cases and fashion remedies in accordance with the pleadings of the parties and with judicial interpretation of the applicable laws. That is an error. Jurisdiction is inherent in the judicial office; judicial power is functional in how the judicial deploys its jurisdiction behind the party or cause that it prefers. This is the sense in which lawyers trained in the methods of the civil law system speak of le pouvoir judiciaire – the judicial power,” said a law lecturer, Prof Chidi Odinkalu, in his recent article entitled, ‘The Supreme Court’s Emergency Politics.’
