By Vivian Okejeme
The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Court of Appeal freezing the assets of Neconde Energy Limited, Nestoil Limited and two others, over an alleged $1.1 billion debt to a consortium of banks led by FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited and First Trustees Limited.
The Apex court held that Appeal Court “exparte order was unwarranted, uncalled for, frivolous and vexatious”.
A five-member panel of the apex court in its judgement held that the three-member panel of the appellate court went beyond their powers in granting an exparte application against the appellants.
The Court of Appeal had on November 29, 2025, granted an interim restorative injunction returning the control of Nestoil’s assets and operations to the Receiver Manager appointed by the banks.
The court further issued an order freezing the assets of the oil servicing firms, pending the hearing of the substantive suit, and a further stay of proceedings at the trial court.
Reacting to the ruling, Neconde, Nestoil and their promoters (Dr Ernest Azudialu-Obiejesi OFR and Mrs Nnenna Azudialu-Obiejesi) appealed the order of the appellate court issued against their assets.
The supreme court, in its judgement agreed with the submissions of Neconde and Nestoil that the lower court erred in law in “entertaining the matter in the manner it did” and their subsequent issuance of an exparte order without any justification.
The five-member panel of the apex court led by Justice Stephen Adah held that records before the Supreme Court showed that the process of transmitting an appeal was not yet completed as at the time the appellate court assumed jurisdiction.
The court maintained that the Notice of Appeal does not amount to a stay of proceedings.
“If there was a Notice of Appeal what necessitated its withdrawal for an exparte”, the apex court queried, before warning that courts must be vigilant, circumspect and discreet in issuing exparte orders.
The court further stated that, “no exception, cause existed nor urgency disclosed that would have warranted the withdrawal of the Notice of Appeal.
Justice Adah noted that abuse of exparte has become a thing of great concern to the judiciary, adding that the appellate court shouldn’t make itself available in such conducts that undermines judiciary.
He held that the appellate court went ahead to make far reaching order into the substantive matter, while sitting in an interlocutory appeal.
“It was granted at a time when the appeal had not been entered….an appellate court can only be seized of a matter when the appeal has been fully entered.
“Mere filing of a Notice of Appeal does not apply as stay”, Supreme Court held.
