The Federal High Court in Lagos has granted Petrocam Trading Nigeria Limited conditional relief in its ongoing dispute with a commercial bank over an alleged debt of N9,057,511,855.63.
Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke held that the company may have the freezing order on its accounts lifted upon providing a bank guarantee or bond covering the disputed sum.
Ruling in suit FHC/L/CS/393/2026, the court said the arrangement was necessary to balance the claimant bank’s interest in preserving the disputed funds with the need to prevent undue disruption to Petrocam’s business operations.
Justice Aneke held that once Petrocam and its principal, Patrick Ilo, furnish a valid bank guarantee or bond from a reputable financial institution for the full N9.05 billion claim, the ex parte orders freezing their accounts shall lapse.
The defendants had approached the court seeking to discharge the interim freezing order that had earlier been granted in favour of the claimant bank.
The order, obtained ex parte, was intended to preserve funds allegedly owed as of May 31, 2025.
In a motion filed on March 9, 2026, counsel to the defendants, Gboyega Oyewole (SAN), alongside Kolawole Salami and Ademola Adefolaju, argued that the order was procured through material non-disclosure.
They alleged wrongful debit entries, disputed interest computations, and reliance on alleged Federal Government and Central Bank of Nigeria directives suspending interest on short-term credit facilities.
The court, however, dismissed the argument, holding that the defendants failed to establish any material non-disclosure sufficient to vitiate the interim order.
Justice Aneke ruled that issues relating to the validity of the debt, alleged wrongful charges, and the effect of government policy on interest rates are substantive matters to be determined at trial.
The court also considered a letter from Zenith Bank Plc dated December 16, 2024, which suggested that Petrocam was not indebted to the bank but had a contingent liability arising from a bank guarantee.
While the defendants relied on the letter to challenge the claim, the court held that it did not resolve the core dispute at the interlocutory stage and must be tested at trial.
Justice Aneke further distinguished between an actual debt and a contingent liability, stressing that the interpretation of financial instruments depends on their substance rather than the labels assigned to them.
The claimant bank had argued that it financed the importation of petroleum products for Petrocam and related entities, with repayment tied to proceeds from product sales.
It alleged that the defendants diverted proceeds outside the agreed repayment structure, resulting in the accumulation of the N9.05 billion exposure.
Petrocam denied the allegations, insisting that the facilities had been fully liquidated and that the bank’s claims were inflated by wrongful charges and disputed interest components.
In resolving the interlocutory application, the court weighed the competing interests of both parties.
While the bank sought to restrain the defendants from operating their accounts up to the disputed sum, Petrocam argued that such a restriction would cripple its business and cause irreparable harm to its operations and goodwill.
Justice Aneke adopted a middle-ground approach, holding that the requirement of a bank guarantee or bond adequately protects the claimant’s interest while preventing undue hardship on the defendants pending determination of the substantive suit.
The court emphasised that the central issues, including the existence and quantum of the alleged debt, the legality of the interest charges, and the parties’ conduct, remain open for determination at trial.