Nigerian Concord Newspaper
This isn’t a good time for Justice Deinde Isaac Dipeolu of the Federal High Court in Lagos State as he is being faced with criticism and media backlashes over his controversial Order in the case involving Nestoil, FBNQuest merchant bank limited and Nestoil limited, Neconde energy limited, Ernest Azudialu-Obiejesi, Nnena Obiejesi/Glencoe energy UK limited, Fidelity bank plc, Mauritius Commercial Bank limited and Africa finance corporation.
Dipeolu who has been tagged as a corrupt judge by activists both in and outside Lagos State recently granted a controversial ex parte order in the Nestoil case.
According to findings by Nigerian Concord Newspaper, Justice Dipeolu was neither practical nor straightforward in the Order as he was accused of introducing unnecessary
complications in the matter.
According to Nigerian Equity and Justice Movement in a press statement signed by its President, Comrade Adekunle Ajayi this afternoon, Justice Dipeolu has erred and displayed judicial rascality especially when he granted an ex parte Order to appoint a receiver/manager over Neconde’s interest in OML 42.
According to Nigeria Equity and Justice Movement which condemned Dipeolu in the statement, the judge’s Order was the height of judicial impunity because it was made by a court without hearing the story of the person or persons against whom the order is made.
Saying that Dipeolu has undermined public confidence in him as a judge of the Federal High Court, the group noted that the ex parte Order is supposed to be made only in cases of exceptional urgency where the subject matter of the suit will likely be destroyed or dissipated irretrievably if the order was not made
immediately.
The Nigeria Equity and Justice Movement however threatened to petition the National Judicial Council as a way to report the judicial rascality and corrupt acts of Justice Dipeolu.
Nigerian Concord can authoritatively report the mind-boggling scandal which surfaced again over the controversial orders of Justice Dehinde Dipeolu in Suit No FHC/L/CS/2127/2025 on the ongoing legal battles between Nestoil and FBNQUEST MERCHANT BANK LIMITED with First Charge Holders (Senior Lenders) namely: Glencore Energy UK Limited, Fidelity Bank Plc, Mauritius Commercial Bank and African Finance Corporation seeking to join the Suit pending before the Federal High Court, Lagos and to set aside the Ex-parte orders of October 25th, 2025.
According to documents available to this newspaper, the First Charge Holders claim that the said Ex-parte Order was obtained by misrepresentation by the Plaintiff in the said Suit, and that the orders unlawfully restrict the First Charge Holders’ ability to access or manage their financial interest to the Defendants especially the 2nd Defendant (Neconde Energy Limited). Consequently, the said Senior Lenders on the 6th of November, 2025 sought to be joined in the suit as parties affected by the Order granted by Hon. Justice Dehinde Dipeolu in the Suit No. FHC/L/CS/2127/2025.
In a 335 page document presented before the Honourable Court by the said Senior Lenders to vacate the Order, the Senior Lenders prayed that it affected their interest and it was obtained unlawfully and by suppression of facts.
The aforementioned First Charge Lenders/Parties seeking to be joined filed a 55-paragraph Affidavit to support their application, accused the Plaintiffs who obtained the Ex-parte orders in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/2127/2025, appointing a Receiver/ Manager over the assets of the Defendants because they acted unlawfully and obtained the said Order by misrepresentation.
According to the documents available to Nigerian Concord Newspaper, they specifically sought the vacation of Mr. Abubakar Sulu-Gambari as Receiver/Manager appointed by the Plaintiff.
The affidavit evidence accompanying the Application by the Senior Lenders (First Charge Holders) reveal that Nestoil lenders requested that 2nd Defendant (Neconde’s) interest in OML 42 should be provided as additional collateral for the repayment of the Nestoil loans; but Neconde (the 2nd Defendant in the Plaintiff’s Suit) had already used its interest in OML 42 as a collateral to secure the loans it obtained from the parties seeking to be joined.
The document reads in parts: “The aforesaid Neconde Lenders seeking to be joined created a first charge over the assets of Neconde including Neconde’s interest in OML 42. But the Neconde lenders refused to permit creation of a secondary charge or any charge on the assets of Neconde including its interest in OML 42 in favour of the lender represented by the Plaintiff.
“These were facts known to the Plaintiffs and even presented to Hon. Justice Dipeolu in all the processes filed by the Plaintiff on behalf of Nestoil Lenders. The big question is: On which basis did Hon. Justice Dipeolu grant the overreaching Orders empowering the Plaintiffs to appoint a Receiver Manager when the Hon. Justice himself declined to give judicial recognition of the appointment of the Receiver Manager by the Plaintiffs as contained in prayer 3 of the Motion Ex-parte?
“Another big question is on which basis did Justice Dipeolu grant the following Order and other similar Orders?
“That an order is hereby made granting leave to the Receiver/Manager to take over the 2nd Defendant’s (Neconde) office situate at 41/42 Akin Adesola Street, Victoria Island, Lagos; any other asset of the 2nd Defendant wherever it may be found within the jurisdiction of this Court; and/or the 2nd Defendant’s interest in OML 42 JV by virtue of the Deed of Appointment dated 21st of August, 2025, pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice.”
It was also gathered by this newspaper that apart from Common Terms Agreement exhibited by the Plaintiffs in the Motion Ex-parte, the Plaintiffs did not exhibit any debenture on the assets of the 2nd Defendant. “Therefore, on what basis did the trial Judge make Orders against the 2nd Defendant, 3rd and 4th Defendants? the applicants queries in the documented..
“The Plaintiffs exhibited Common Term Agreement to their Motion Ex-parte but upon a perusal of the same Common Term Agreement, the assets of the 2nd Defendant were excluded because they were covered by First Charge Holders who never gave any consent to the Plaintiff Lenders to create any charge on the assets of the 2nd Defendant. With these documents before Hon. Justice Dehinde Dipeolu but how did the said Judge make far-reaching Orders against the 2nd Defendant whose assets were not part of the assets secured by the Plaintiffs Lenders?
The documents also read: “Having declined to accord judicial recognition of the appointment of the Plaintiffs’ Receiver/Manager as contained in Prayer 3 of the Plaintiff’s Motion Ex-parte, which other instrument (debenture or charge) did the Hon. Justice have before him to make the far-reaching orders involving the Police, Navy and DSS to assist the Receiver Manager and also directing the Receiver/Manager to proceed to sell crude oil, 2nd Defendant’s assets and interests in OML 42 JV?
“Why did he grant the Ex-parte Orders when the reliefs sought in the Motion Ex-parte, Motion on Notice and the Originating Summons are the same? Has Justice Dideolu not read the judicial authorities on this matter?
Meanwhile, a perusal of the Plaintiffs’ Affidavit seeking to obtain the Ex-parte Order, confirms that the debt relationship between the Netstoil and the Plaintiff’s Lenders have a long history of transaction (debt and repayment). “So why the urgency? the applicants queries further.
“Certainly, with the unfolding facts, these are matters that might be presented to the National Judicial Council to scrutinize judicial officers like Hon. Justice Dehinde Dipeolu who has refused to comply with the directives and warnings of the Chief Justice of Nigeria to Judges to exercise caution in granting far reaching Ex Parte Orders in contentious matters like these, as well as the settled position of judicial authorities in matters like this, which are replete.
“For instance, in the Supreme Court decision in ECOBANK NIGERIA LIMITED vs. HONEYWELL FLOUR MILLS PLC (2018) LPELR -45124(SC) where the Supreme Court held that the Ex Parte Asset Freezing Order obtained by Ecobank was wrongly granted, an abuse of Court Process and a clear breach of extant Laws and a deprivation of the right of fair hearing of the Respondent. The ECOBANK case is a significant reference point in Nigeria Commercial Law on the proper procedure for obtaining injunctions and the limits of judicial discretion in granting Ex Parte Orders.
“In the case of Sotuminu v. OCEAN STEAMSHIP NIG LTD & Ors (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 239)1, the Supreme Court of ruled that a Mareva injunction should not be granted or maintained if it prevents a Defendant from meeting their ordinary living expenses or their normal course of business or trade as it is a protective measure and not a punitive one designed to oppress the defendant or destroy their livelihood before a judgment has been reached and that the Applicant must show proof that there is a risk of the Defendant taking flight or dissipating the Assets, subject matter of the proceedings, otherwise a Mareva Injunction should not be granted.
“In spite of all these notable guidelines and principles, Justice Dipeolu granted a far reaching Order which appears deliberately aimed at destroying the business and livelihood of the Defendants as he restricted even the Personal Bank Accounts of the Directors of Nestoil traced through their Bank Verification Numbers (BVN), even when the veil of incorporation is not yet lifted, and also empowered the Plaintiffs to take over the Management of Assets and resources linked to Nestoil which are not even covered by the Debenture relied upon by the Plaintiffs. There was also no proof that the Defendants were in any way liable to dissipate the Assets before Judgment is reached in the case. The said grant of the far-reaching Ex Parte Orders by Justice Dipeolu clearly indicates the personal interest of the Judge in the matter as he has fettered his discretions to doing the bidding of the Plaintiffs by recklessly abusing his Office, to the extent of Ordering the DSS and the Navy to execute the Orders he granted in the favour of the Plaintiffs in a Civil Case contrary to the provisions of the Sheriffs and Civil Processes Act.
“Justice Dipeolu is a Judge of the Federal High Court under the Administrative authority of The Chief Judge of the Federal High Court. There is a common presumption that all judges of the Federal High Court are subject to the administrative direction of the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court and an administrative action by the Chief Judge to inquire into a Complaint of alleged recklessness and abuse of office by a Judge of the Federal High Court cannot be imagined or seen as the Chief Judge mounting pressure or fishing for a friendly Judge.
“It thus appears that the said allegation of mounting of Pressure made against the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court is an attempt by those whose bidding Justice Dipeolu is executing, to blackmail the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court from inquiring into the Petitions of recklessness and abuse of Office leveled against Justice Dipeolu”the document reads further..