Shell Blocked Accounts: Court Rules On UBA M.D’s Present In Court Tuesday

A Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos will next Tuesday decide
three applications relating to its interim order directing
commercial 20 banks to block Shell Petroleum Development Company
(SPDC) of Nigeria Ltd accounts for alleged crude oil diversion.

Justice Oluremi Oguntoyinbo fixed the date after hearing
arguments from counsel for Aiteo Eastern E & P Company Ltd, Mr Kemi
Pinheiro and Emeka Ezoani (SAN), Adewale Atake (SAN) for SPDC,
Olawale Akoni (SAN) for the banks and Chukwuka Ikwuazom (SAN), for
four Shell subsidiaries.

AITEO Eastern E & P Company Ltd is the plaintiff/applicants
in the suit marked FHC/L/CS/52/202 and SPDC Ltd is the first
defendant.

Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Shell Western Supply and Trading Ltd,
Shell International Trading and Shipping Company Ltd and Shell
Nigeria Exploration and Production Company Ltd are second, third,
fourth and fifth defendants.

Justice Oguntoyinbo had, on January 25, 2021, directed the banks
to “ring-fence any cash, bonds, deposits, all forms of negotiable
instruments to the value of $2.7 billion and pay all standing
credits to the Shell companies up to the value into an interest
yielding account in the name of the Chief Registrar of the
court.”

The CR is to “hold the funds in trust” pending the hearing of
the motion and determination of the motion on notice for
interlocutory injunction filed before it by AITEO.

The order followed an application by AITEO Eastern E & P, in its
bid to recover the cash value of its “more than 16 million barrels
of crude oil” allegedly diverted by Shell.

The defendants subsequently filed an application seeking to
discharge the order while Aiteo initiated committal proceedings
against two banks and their officials for allegedly “interfering,
obstructing and/or frustrating compliance with the interim Mareva
orders.

The banks and their officials are: Citi Bank Ltd, its Company
Secretary Sola Fagbure and Chief Financial Officer, Sharaf
Mohammed; United Bank For Africa (UBA) Plc, its Company Secretary
Bill Andrew Odum and Chief Financial Officer, Ebenezer
Kolawole.

Last Thursday, the judge adjourned to consider whether to first
entertain a motion challenging its jurisdiction or to consider
contempt proceedings.

Upon resumption of proceedings on Tuesday, the court considered
three applications relating to its jurisdiction, motion to
discharge its ex-parte order and the committal proceedings.

Arguing the application for committal, Pinheiro reasoned that it
was “necessary that the named persons in committal proceedings (the
bank officials) be present in court” because the proceedings
“attached to their person”.

He said alleged contemnors had been served “and there’s proof of
service,” adding that the quasi-criminal nature of committal
proceedings made their appearance a necessity. He noted that they
had not filed a response.

But Akoni, Atake and Ikwuazom opposed him.

Akoni acknowledged that the banks were served on February 24 and
25, and were thus within time to file a response. He indicated that
they intended to challenge the competence and validity of AITEO’s
application.

He prayed the court to make an order vacating the ex-parte
order, because according to him, it lapsed 14 days after it was
made.
Atake aligned himself with Akoni’s argument on vacating the
ex-parte order.

Ikwuazom made a similar submission and drew the court’s
attention to a pending application before the court challenging its
jurisdiction to hear the matter. He prayed the judge to declare
that the ex-parte order was spent.

But Pinheiro noted among others that the court made the order to
last pending the hearing of the motion and determination of the
motion on notice for interlocutory injunction filed before it by
AITEO.

He described the defendants’ arguments as “Premature, unfair and
time-wasting.”

Responding, the judge held: “The avalanche of submissions cannot
be wished away. The court owes all parties the duty of careful
consideration of all authorities cited.”

She adjourned till Tuesday 9th of March for ruling.

A Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos will next Tuesday decide
three applications relating to its interim order directing
commercial 20 banks to block Shell Petroleum Development Company
(SPDC) of Nigeria Ltd accounts for alleged crude oil diversion.

Justice Oluremi Oguntoyinbo fixed the date after hearing
arguments from counsel for Aiteo Eastern E & P Company Ltd, Mr Kemi
Pinheiro and Emeka Ezoani (SAN), Adewale Atake (SAN) for SPDC,
Olawale Akoni (SAN) for the banks and Chukwuka Ikwuazom (SAN), for
four Shell subsidiaries.

AITEO Eastern E & P Company Ltd is the plaintiff/applicants
in the suit marked FHC/L/CS/52/202 and SPDC Ltd is the first
defendant.

Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Shell Western Supply and Trading Ltd,
Shell International Trading and Shipping Company Ltd and Shell
Nigeria Exploration and Production Company Ltd are second, third,
fourth and fifth defendants.

Justice Oguntoyinbo had, on January 25, 2021, directed the banks
to “ring-fence any cash, bonds, deposits, all forms of negotiable
instruments to the value of $2.7 billion and pay all standing
credits to the Shell companies up to the value into an interest
yielding account in the name of the Chief Registrar of the
court.”

The CR is to “hold the funds in trust” pending the hearing of
the motion and determination of the motion on notice for
interlocutory injunction filed before it by AITEO.

The order followed an application by AITEO Eastern E & P, in its
bid to recover the cash value of its “more than 16 million barrels
of crude oil” allegedly diverted by Shell.

The defendants subsequently filed an application seeking to
discharge the order while Aiteo initiated committal proceedings
against two banks and their officials for allegedly “interfering,
obstructing and/or frustrating compliance with the interim Mareva
orders.

The banks and their officials are: Citi Bank Ltd, its Company
Secretary Sola Fagbure and Chief Financial Officer, Sharaf
Mohammed; United Bank For Africa (UBA) Plc, its Company Secretary
Bill Andrew Odum and Chief Financial Officer, Ebenezer
Kolawole.

Last Thursday, the judge adjourned to consider whether to first
entertain a motion challenging its jurisdiction or to consider
contempt proceedings.

Upon resumption of proceedings on Tuesday, the court considered
three applications relating to its jurisdiction, motion to
discharge its ex-parte order and the committal proceedings.

Arguing the application for committal, Pinheiro reasoned that it
was “necessary that the named persons in committal proceedings (the
bank officials) be present in court” because the proceedings
“attached to their person”.

He said alleged contemnors had been served “and there’s proof of
service,” adding that the quasi-criminal nature of committal
proceedings made their appearance a necessity. He noted that they
had not filed a response.

But Akoni, Atake and Ikwuazom opposed him.

Akoni acknowledged that the banks were served on February 24 and
25, and were thus within time to file a response. He indicated that
they intended to challenge the competence and validity of AITEO’s
application.

He prayed the court to make an order vacating the ex-parte
order, because according to him, it lapsed 14 days after it was
made.
Atake aligned himself with Akoni’s argument on vacating the
ex-parte order.

Ikwuazom made a similar submission and drew the court’s
attention to a pending application before the court challenging its
jurisdiction to hear the matter. He prayed the judge to declare
that the ex-parte order was spent.

But Pinheiro noted among others that the court made the order to
last pending the hearing of the motion and determination of the
motion on notice for interlocutory injunction filed before it by
AITEO.

He described the defendants’ arguments as “Premature, unfair and
time-wasting.”

Responding, the judge held: “The avalanche of submissions cannot
be wished away. The court owes all parties the duty of careful
consideration of all authorities cited.”

She adjourned till Tuesday 9th of March for ruling.