The ruling effectively restores operational control of the companies to their management and sends the case back to the trial court for continuation.
In a judgment delivered on Monday by a five-member panel, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal exceeded its authority in granting an ex parte order that froze the companies’ assets.
Justice Stephen Adah, who read the lead judgment, criticised the appellate court for assuming jurisdiction improperly and issuing injunctions in a matter that was not properly before it.
The apex court also faulted the lower court for what it described as misuse of judicial process, particularly its intervention in proceedings already ongoing at the Federal High Court in Lagos.
The case originates from debt recovery actions filed by lenders, including FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited and First Trustees Limited, against Nestoil and Neconde over financing arrangements tied to oil assets and operations.
At the centre of the dispute is an alleged $1.1 billion indebtedness arising from structured financing agreements in the energy sector.
In October 2025, the Federal High Court in Lagos granted an ex parte Mareva injunction, freezing bank accounts, shares, and other assets of the companies across more than 20 financial institutions.
The defendants challenged the order, arguing it automatically lapsed after 14 days under procedural rules once a motion to discharge it was filed.
In November 2025, Justice Daniel Osiagor held that the interim order had expired by operation of law and was no longer valid.
However, the Court of Appeal later intervened on 29 November, when Justice Yargata Nimpar granted an interim restorative injunction returning control of Nestoil’s assets and operations to a receiver manager appointed by the banks, effectively reinstating the freeze.
That appellate decision has now been set aside, with the Supreme Court restoring the matter to the trial court for determination on the merits.
The ruling ensures that Nestoil Limited and Neconde Energy Limited regain operational control while the substantive dispute continues in the lower court.