Table of Contents
A fight over who can represent Nestoil and its affiliate Neconde in court has pushed an appeal into the new year, tightening the spotlight on Nestoil founder Ernest Azudialu-Obiejesi as disputes hang over the group’s finances and control of a key oil asset.
At a Dec. 4, 2025 hearing, two teams of senior lawyers announced appearances for each of the 1st and 2nd respondents, Nestoil and Neconde, forcing the Court of Appeal to confront a basic question: who has the right to speak for the companies.
Ayoola Ajayi, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, told the panel that appellate rulings require judges to settle representation disputes first. He cited ZP Ind v. Zanutech and AG Fed v. ICAN. Ajayi said he had filed an application seeking to strike out processes filed by Muiz Banire and to disqualify Banire from representing the 1st respondent.
Banire said he was counsel on record and urged the court to acknowledge his appearance. He argued that the motion to disqualify him was not yet ripe and asked the panel to recognize him in the interim.
Ayo Olorunfemi and Chief Wole Olanipekun, both Senior Advocates, adopted similar positions aligned with Ajayi and Banire. Olanipekun said he had not been served with any motion to remove him and was learning of the challenge in open court.
Kehinde Ogunwumiju said he represented Nnenna Obiejesi, the 4th respondent, and that his appearance was not contested. The justices noted that his application was on notice and that representation disputes involving other parties on that notice had to be settled first.
The court directed the contesting parties to file affidavits and written addresses supporting their claims to appear for the 1st and 2nd respondents. The case was adjourned to Jan. 15, 2026.
For Azudialu-Obiejesi, the delay lands amid scrutiny of the Nestoil/Neconde group. The matter features claims of about $1.01 billion and 430 billion naira in debts. Court actions linked to the dispute have left accounts tied to Nestoil, Neconde, Azudialu-Obiejesi and Nnenna Obiejesi under freeze orders, according to filings referenced in court.
The companies’ 45% interest in the OML 42 joint venture remains under receivership while the appeal is stalled.
The next hearing is expected to determine which legal team the court will recognize, a decision that could set the pace of the broader contest over the companies’ obligations and the future role of their founder for now.
