By Abdulrahman Abdullahi
Defense Justice Oluremi Oguntoyinbo of a Federal High Court in Lagos, yesterday declined to vacate the interim mareva injunction directing 20 banks to block the bank accounts of Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC) and its subsidiaries over alleged oil theft.
The judge also summoned officials of two banks for allegedly disobeying the order made on January 25, 2021. The affected banks and their officials were Citi Bank Limited, its Company Secretary, Sola Fagbure and Chief Financial Officer, Sharaf Mohammed and United Bank For Africa (UBA) Plc, its Company Secretary, Bill Andrew Odum and Chief Financial Officer, Ebenezer Kolawole.
Joined with SPDC as respondents in the suit were Royal Dutch Shell Plc; Shell Western Supply and Trading Limited; Shell International Trading and Shipping Company Limited and Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company Limited.
Related Posts
Justice Oguntoyinbo granted the mareva injunction on January 25, 2021; directing 20 commercial banks to block SPDC and its subsidiaries’ accounts and barring Royal Dutch Shell’s Nigerian subsidiaries from withdrawing money from the 20 banks.
She directed the twenty 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 order was sequel to Aiteo’s bid to recover from Shell, the cash equivalent of more than 16 million barrels of crude oil allegedly diverted by the oil giant. At the last hearing on March 9, the court heard three motions by Aiteo and the defendants relating to its jurisdiction, as well as motions to discharge its ex-parte order and committal proceedings against the two banks.
Aiteo’s lawyer, Kemi Pinheiro (SAN), prayed the court to first hear the committal proceedings. He added 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 the alleged contemnors had been served “and there’s proof of service,” adding that the quasicriminal nature of committal proceedings made their appearance a necessity. He noted that they had not filed a response.”
