Table of Contents
Nigeria’s Court of Appeal has removed two of the country’s best known senior advocates from acting for oil services group Nestoil and its affiliate Neconde Energy, a fresh twist in a debt dispute that has drawn in a consortium of banks and court appointed receivers.
In a ruling delivered on Friday, January 23, the appellate court disqualified Chief Wole Olanipekun SAN and Dr Muiz Banire SAN, along with lawyers appearing with them, from representing the companies in matters tied to the receivership.
Delivering the decision, the justices said the board led by Ernest Azudialu Obiejesi could not validly appoint the silks because the receivership had suspended the directors’ powers. The court granted orders sought by the lenders to disqualify and suspend Olanipekun from acting for Nestoil Limited and Banire from acting for Neconde Energy Limited.
The court also struck out all processes filed by the law firms. That step is more than procedural housekeeping. It can wipe away applications already before the court, push hearings back, and force the companies to start again through fresh counsel, at added cost and under tighter time pressure.
The case sits inside a wider funding standoff. Banking sources put Nestoil’s liabilities at about US$2 billion, a figure they say now surpasses the minimum capital requirement of at least four Nigerian banks with international licences. The dispute is being watched as a test of how far receivers can sideline founders when syndicated energy loans sour in Nigeria’s courts now. In lender circles, the complaint is familiar: a borrower that is slow to repay while taking steps that erode the value of pledged security.
Nestoil has not published a detailed repayment timetable. People familiar with the dispute say the banks moved to receivership after concluding that informal workouts were going nowhere, and that they wanted to secure collateral and stabilise cash flows linked to operating assets. The companies, for their part, have been contesting aspects of the lenders’ actions and have fought a series of jurisdictional and procedural battles as the matter climbs through the courts.
Friday’s ruling strengthens the banks’ hand because it narrows the Obiejesi board’s ability to direct strategy while receivers remain in place. It also increases the pressure on both sides to weigh a commercial outcome, whether that is a restructuring, an asset sale program, or a longer legal trench war that risks damaging the business the lenders are trying to protect.
