Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke of the Federal High Court in Lagos has fixed April 30, 2026, to deliver a ruling on an application by Petrocam Trading Nigeria Limited seeking to lift an interim order freezing its bank accounts over an alleged N9.05 billion debt.
The freeze order was earlier granted following an ex parte motion filed by a commercial bank in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/393/2026 to safeguard funds it claims are owed by Petrocam and its principal, Patrick Ilo, as of May 31, 2025.
At the resumed hearing, Petrocam’s legal team, led by Gboyega Oyewole (SAN) alongside Supo Ati-John (SAN), asked the court to set aside the order, arguing that it was obtained without full disclosure of relevant facts and has severely disrupted the company’s operations.
Counsel told the court that Petrocam remains an active business with operations across the country, stressing that the continued restriction on its accounts has caused significant financial strain, even though there is no risk of the company dissipating funds.
In a supporting affidavit deposed to by its Head of Trade, Sunmola Omolara, the company denied owing the bank, maintaining that it had fully repaid a 2014 import finance facility. It stated that over N7.4 billion from petroleum product sales was paid directly to the bank, supported by transaction records and agreements involving major industry players such as Total Nigeria Plc and Oando Plc.
Petrocam explained that the facility was structured to be repaid through proceeds from petroleum sales and Sovereign Debt Notes issued under the Federal Government’s fuel subsidy programme. It added that any temporary payment gaps were due to delays in government reimbursements, which were eventually cleared between 2019 and 2020.
The company further claimed that all interest on the facility had been waived and settled through the Debt Management Office, noting that the bank was aware of and participated in the subsidy-backed arrangement.
A major part of Petrocam’s argument is that the bank allegedly failed to comply with a directive from the Central Bank of Nigeria requiring a full waiver of interest on subsidy-related debts, while continuing to apply interest charges as recently as 2023 and 2024.
It also alleged that regulatory authorities had directed the bank to refund excess charges, which it claims has not been done.
Petrocam relied on a Letter of Non-Indebtedness dated December 16, 2024, purportedly issued by the bank, stating that its account was in credit apart from a contingent liability tied to a bank guarantee. The company argued that the bank’s current claim of a N9 billion debt contradicts this position and undermines the basis for freezing its accounts.
The firm also contended that no valid demand notice was served before the lawsuit, describing a June 2025 demand letter sent to an incorrect address as an afterthought.
In addition, Petrocam accused the bank of mismanaging the facility, including failing to secure foreign exchange for letters of credit and improperly accounting for funds remitted.
Patrick Ilo, named as the second defendant, has asked the court to remove his name from the suit, insisting he did not provide any personal guarantee and acted solely on behalf of the company. He also denied any allegations of fraud or diversion of funds.
The defendants argued that the bank did not meet the legal requirements for obtaining the freezing order and maintained that there is no substantial issue for trial, especially in light of the alleged confirmation of non-indebtedness. They added that the balance of convenience favours Petrocam, which is currently unable to operate normally due to the restrictions, while the bank can be compensated if it succeeds at trial.
However, counsel to the bank, Chief Ajibola Aribisala (SAN), opposed the application, urging the court to maintain the freeze order. He argued that the bank’s claim is based on an existing debt and that the issues raised by Petrocam should be determined during the full trial rather than at the interlocutory stage.
Aribisala further maintained that the order is necessary to preserve the subject matter of the case, warning that lifting it could jeopardise the bank’s chances of recovering the alleged debt.
After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Aneke adjourned the matter for ruling on April 30, 2026.
