A legal storm has brewed following the orders issued by Justice Dehinde Dipeolu on October 25, 2025, in the high-profile dispute between Nestoil and FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited under Suit No. FHC/L/CS/2127/2025. The controversy revolves around the Ex-parte orders granted to Nestoil, which have prompted the First Charge Holders—Glencore Energy UK Limited, Fidelity Bank Plc, Mauritius Commercial Bank, and African Finance Corporation—to seek the annulment of these orders.

The First Charge Holders assert that the Ex-parte orders, which empower Nestoil to appoint a receiver/manager over the assets of the Defendants, were obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation. They claim that these orders unjustly limit their ability to manage their financial interests, particularly in relation to the 2nd Defendant, Neconde Energy Limited. On November 6, 2025, the First Charge Holders filed an application to be included in the suit, requesting the court to void the orders issued on October 25.

In their 335-page application, the Senior Lenders argued that the Ex-parte orders were unlawfully granted and that the Plaintiffs misled the court. They also called for the removal of Mr. Abubakar Sulu-Gambari, the receiver/manager appointed by the Plaintiff. According to the Senior Lenders’ affidavit, Neconde’s interest in OML 42 had already been pledged as collateral to secure loans from the First Charge Holders. They claim the Plaintiffs sought to include this asset in their motion, despite the fact that no consent was given by the First Charge Holders.

Despite these claims, Justice Dipeolu granted orders that affected Neconde’s assets, including its interest in OML 42. This is controversial, as no consent was provided by the First Charge Holders to include Neconde’s assets in the Plaintiff’s motion. This raises critical questions regarding the legal foundation for such orders, especially considering the absence of any formal documentation to support the charges the Plaintiffs sought to impose.

The controversy has escalated as the Plaintiffs, through their Ex-parte motion, also sought permission to involve the police, Navy, and DSS in enforcing the orders. These measures included the seizure of crude oil and the assets linked to Neconde’s interest in OML 42. Legal observers have criticized these actions, arguing that they are excessive and may damage the Defendants’ business operations.

Legal experts have pointed to previous Supreme Court rulings, such as in the case of ECOBANK vs. Honeywell Flour Mills, to emphasize the importance of judicial restraint in granting Ex-parte orders. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that asset-freezing orders should not be granted unless there is clear evidence of the risk of dissipation or concealment of assets.

With concerns about judicial overreach mounting, there are calls for the National Judicial Council to investigate Justice Dipeolu’s conduct in this case. Allegations of bias and abuse of power suggest that the Ex-parte orders may have been granted improperly, with the potential to undermine the business interests of the Defendants. As the case progresses, it is likely to become a significant case study on the limits of judicial discretion in commercial disputes in Nigeria.