Court Warns First Bank, Access Bank, Zenith Bank MDs Over Alleged Disobedience in $1bn Nestoil Debt Case
The Federal High Court in Abuja has issued a strong caution to three major Nigerian banks — First Bank of Nigeria Limited, Access Bank Plc, and Zenith Bank Plc — warning their Managing Directors that they could face imprisonment if they fail to comply with an existing court order related to an ongoing oil-asset dispute. The development stems from contentious proceedings surrounding an alleged $1 billion Nestoil debt tied to the OML 42 Joint Venture, a strategic onshore oil operation in which the Federal Government holds a controlling 55 percent stake.
The dispute, filed under Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/2369/2025, prompted the court to issue a series of Form 48 “Notices of Consequences of Disobedience to Court Order,” formally notifying the bank chiefs that disobedience could result in contempt charges and possible committal to prison. The notices, dated November 13, 2025, and served between November 7 and 13, were delivered to First Bank’s Managing Director at both its Lagos Marina headquarters and its Abuja branch on Muhammadu Buhari Way.
The case was initiated by Neconde Energy Limited, White Dove Shipping Company Limited, and other claimants who allege that the banks and additional defendants acted contrary to court directives concerning an asset linked to the FSO Ugo Ocha, a vessel associated with the OML 42 oil operations. The plaintiffs insisted that the banks were taking actions capable of undermining the subject of litigation, prompting the court’s intervention.
Related News
Supreme Court Affirms Seven-Year Jail Term for Former Senator Albert Bassey
The Supreme Court of Nigeria has affirmed the conviction and seven-year prison sentence of former senator Albert Bassey over a…
FIFA and UEFA Presidents Named in ICC Complaint Alleging Complicity in Settlement Activities
Presidents Gianni Infantino and Aleksander Ceferin have been accused of aiding war crimes in a complaint submitted to the International…
Court Sentences Cleric to Death Over Killing of University of Uyo Final-Year Student in Akwa Ibom
An Akwa Ibom State High Court has sentenced Prince Emmanuel Umoh, a cleric, to death by hanging for the 2020…
At the heart of the warning is an interim directive issued on November 6, 2025, in which the court refused an ex-parte application for an injunction but ordered all parties to maintain the status quo pending the hearing of the motion for interlocutory injunction. The court further prohibited any dealing, alteration, or interference with the disputed asset until the motion on notice is heard and determined. Copies of the order were attached to the banks’ notices to reinforce the seriousness of the directive.
The Form 48 notices reiterated the consequences clearly:
“Unless you stop further disobedience and comply with the direction contained in the order… you will be guilty of contempt of court and will be liable to be committed to prison.”
The issuance of Form 48 signals the initial phase of contempt proceedings. If the banks or their executives continue actions deemed inconsistent with the court’s preservation order, the court may escalate to Form 49 — a direct summons to appear and show cause why they should not be imprisoned for contempt.
The court has scheduled the hearing for the motion on notice for December 4, 2025. Until then, the interim order remains fully operational, and any violation is expected to attract strict sanctions.
Public responses to the development have been mixed, with online commentators offering wide-ranging views. Some observers described the situation as another example of the complexities and tensions surrounding Nigeria’s joint-venture oil agreements, where disagreements frequently escalate into legal battles. Others emphasized that court orders must be respected by all entities, regardless of their size or influence.
Several commenters expressed cynicism, suggesting that conflicts involving powerful corporate actors often lead to contradictory court orders, prolonged proceedings, or political interference. Some critics blamed systemic corruption for what they view as the erosion of trust in major institutions, including the banking and judicial sectors. Meanwhile, others dismissed the dispute as a clash of wealthy interests, far removed from the concerns of ordinary citizens.
Despite the public reactions, the court’s message remains unambiguous: until December 4, 2025, all parties must maintain the status quo or face serious consequences. With billions of dollars and major oil assets at stake, the case is likely to remain one of the most closely watched commercial disputes in Nigeria in the coming weeks.