Nestoil, Neconde Sue FirstBank, Access, Zenith, Others For $1.8bn Over Alleged 20,000bpd Crude Output Loss
Nestoil and Neconde seek $1.8 billion damages, alleging banks’ actions cut oil production and unlawfully disrupted operations and investments.
Nestoil and Neconde seek $1.8 billion damages, alleging banks’ actions cut oil production and unlawfully disrupted operations and investments.
Nestoil and Neconde have instituted processes for a $1.8 billion damages suit against FBN Quest, FBN Trustees, Firstbank, their Receiver, Access Bank, Zenith Bank and ors for what they describe as reckless and unlawful disruption of oil production.
Both companies alleged that the banks’ actions and the actions of their receiver crippled operations, slashing crude oil output from 60,000 barrels per day to below 40,000 barrels per day.
Besides, Nestoil and Neconde maintained that the action also impacted the planned new oil wells drilling campaign with the Pathfinder 500 Drilling Rig with devastating financial consequences and wider economic impact.
This was as the bid by Firstbank to orchestrate the reassignment of the ongoing trial court suit between FBNquest Merchant Bank Ltd/First Trustees Ltd and Nestoil/Neconde has completely collapsed under the full weight of the Supreme Court’s authority, with the Honourable Chief Judge firmly rejecting the reassignment application as baseless and legally untenable.
Relying squarely on the apex court’s judgment in Neconde Energy Limited v. FBNQuest Merchant Bank Ltd & 4 Ors., the Chief Judge made it clear that the Supreme Court found no fault with Hon. Justice Osiagor and gave no hint—directly or indirectly—that the case should be reassigned.
Instead, the Supreme Court ruling condemned the very tactics deployed by Firstbank describing their attempt to stall proceedings they initiated as suggestive of ulterior motives and a misuse of judicial process. That damning pronouncement has now sealed the fate of the reassignment bid.
Backed by the binding force of Section 235 of the Constitution, the court held that there is absolutely no legal basis to displace the trial judge. The attempt has been exposed for what has been termed a failed strategy to derail and manipulate the proceedings, with the consequences escalating fast.
With the Supreme Court’s rebuke now echoing through the case and a $1.8 billion claim on the way, the stakes have shifted dramatically, turning the matter into a high-impact legal and commercial show-down with far-reaching implications.
Meanwhile, a firm, Drawcok Estate Ltd has instituted a whopping N100 billion lawsuit against FBNQuest Merchant Bank Ltd, First Trustees Ltd, MrAbubakar Sulu-Gambari (SAN) and the Deputy Sheriff, Federal High Court of Nigeria, Lagos division, over the alleged unlawful and forceful seizure of its property.
The firm in the suit marked: FHC/L/CS/22/26, claimed that the action of the defendants injured its business reputation, and caused it untold hardship, embarrassment, public odium, economic hardship and occasioned a breach of its right to fair hearing and the right to own moveable and immoveable properties.
According to the plaintiff, the defendants knowingly levied execution of a court order on its property No. 41, No. 42 Akin Adesola Street and 60 Saka Tinubu Street, Victoria Island, Lagos, when the Plaintiff was neither a party to the court proceedings, the Order granted, nor are the property part of the assets contained in the Common Terms Agreement (CTA), under which the Order of the Court was sought and obtained.
Recall that the defendants are currently locked in a legal battle with NestoilLtd, Neconde Ltd and two others over an alleged indebtedness.
Following the orders of Justice Dipeolu of the Lagos division of the Federal High Court, the defendants through the support of security personnel had taken over and sealed the property known as No. 41, No. 42 Akin Adesola Street and 60 Saka Tinubu Street, Victoria Island, Lagos, belonging to the plaintiff.
“On Monday, October 28, 2025, the Plaintiff’s officers and staff received a barrage of calls from Plain-tiff’s security personnel at its property, the Property in issue, that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants led the 4th Defendant with heavily armed security personnel of the Nigeria Police Force, accompanied by personnel of the State Security Services, to the property in issue, sacked the Plaintiff’s security personnel and in a commando fashion broke into the property in issue.
“In the process of forcefully gaining access into the property in issue, the Defendants molested the security personnel at the premises, destroyed the plaintiff’s electronic gates, mutilated the property by painting inscriptions on the walls to the effect that the property had been taken possession of vide order of the Federal High Court, the Court, granted by His Lordship, Hon. Justice Dipeolu in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/2127/2025 between 1. FBNQUEST MERCHANT BANK LIMITED 2. FIRST TRUSTEES LIM-ITED and NESTOIL LIMITED and Others”, the plaintiff claimed.
In an eight-paragraph affidavit deposed in support of the suit plaintiff stated that upon a cursory examination of the processes and order granted by the court, it was never in any way affected by the orders of the court.
The deponent, Mr Akinniyi, who is the legal counsel to the plaintiff argued that FBNQuest Merchant Bank Ltd, First Trustees Ltd and Mr Abubakar Sulu-Gambari (SAN), who are 1st, 2nd and 3rd defend-ants knew or had cause to know that the Plaintiff and its assets, including No. 41, No. 42 Akin Adesola Street and 60 Saka Tinubu Street, Victoria Island, Lagos, is expressly exempted from the CTA, and not covered by the Order granted by the Court in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/2127/2025.
Akinniyi added that despite knowing this they withheld that information and willingly misled the Court to grant the Order against the Plaintiff’s property and also misled 4th Defendant to levy execution on the Plaintiff’s property No. 41, No. 42 Akin Adesola Street and 60 Saka Tinubu Street, Victoria Island, Lagos to the chagrin and embarrassment of the Plaintiff.
“The 1st to 3rd defendants deliberately caused the security cameras in the Plaintiff’s property to be sprayed with paint, effectively rendering them useless and exposing the property to security risks.
“The 1st to 3rd defendants also prevented Plaintiff’s tenants from gaining access to their offices and equally prevented the Technical Staff manning the building from egress and ingress even to buy food as they have been surviving on snacks since they cannot leave the building unmanned,” he argued.
