A high-stakes dispute over legal representation disrupted proceedings at the Court of Appeal in Lagos on Thursday, throwing fresh complications into a long-running battle over an alleged $1 billion debt involving Nestoil Limited, Neconde Energy Limited, and several financial institutions.
The appeal stems from a ruling delivered on 20 November 2025 by Justice Daniel Osiagor of the Federal High Court, Lagos, who lifted a Mareva injunction previously issued to freeze the assets of Nestoil, Neconde, and their directors. Justice Osiagor held that the interim order had lapsed under the Federal High Court Rules, which provide that a freezing order expires 14 days after an application seeking its discharge is filed.
Unhappy with that outcome, First Trustees Limited and FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited took the matter to the appellate court, seeking a reversal of all steps taken after the lower court’s decision. Their motion, dated 26 November 2025, requested a restorative injunction to preserve the status quo.
Justice Yargata Nimpar, presiding over the appeal, granted the request. Her order reinstated the receivership process and barred interference with the receiver’s activities, effectively allowing occupation of Nestoil’s headquarters and halting the Federal High Court proceedings. The substantive appeal was slated for hearing on 4 December.
However, when the matter was called, the courtroom was thrown into confusion as several senior lawyers simultaneously announced appearances for the same parties. For the appellants, both Babajide Koku (SAN) and Kunle Ogunba (SAN) stood up to represent them. For Nestoil, Ayoola Ajayi (SAN) and Dr. Muiz Banire (SAN) separately entered appearances; similarly, Ayo Olorunfemi (SAN) and Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) both claimed to represent Neconde.
Other senior lawyers present included Chinonye Obiagwu (SAN) and Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN) for the third and fourth defendants, while Oluwakemi Balogun (SAN) appeared as an interested party.
Ajayi, asserting that there was a genuine dispute over who was properly authorised to act for Nestoil and Neconde, urged the court to address the representation issue before taking any further steps. Banire countered that no one had challenged his status and that he remained counsel of record from the lower court.
Chief Olanipekun expressed visible frustration, noting, “I am embarrassed. In my 49 years of practice, I have never had a dispute over representation with any lawyer in court.” He attributed the disorder to alleged strategies by the appellants, whom he accused of serving documents on lawyers appointed by the receiver rather than on existing counsel.
Olanipekun maintained that he had not been served with any application questioning his representation and therefore continued to act for Neconde.
Faced with the mounting conflict, Justice Nimpar held that the issue of legal representation was fundamental and had to be settled before the court could proceed with the substantive appeal. Delivering a bench ruling, she observed, “There is an obvious conflict regarding the applications for change of counsel filed on behalf of the first and second respondents. Those applications must be taken first to resolve the issue of legal representation before the court can proceed with any other application.”
She directed all parties to file their responses ahead of the next adjourned date of 15 January 2026, noting that the court would not sit the following week due to an official programme in Abuja, after which the Christmas vacation would commence.
“When the court resumes in January, it will be prepared to address all pending matters with full energy,” she added.