Proceedings at the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, were stalled on Thursday following a heated dispute over who was properly authorised to represent Nestoil Limited and Neconde Energy Limited in an ongoing appeal involving an alleged $1bn debt. The disagreement created tension in the courtroom and forced the court to suspend the day’s hearing.
The appeal was filed by First Trustees Limited and FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited, who are challenging a ruling delivered on 20 November 2025 by Justice Daniel Osiagor of the Federal High Court, Lagos. In that ruling, Justice Osiagor lifted a Mareva injunction that had previously frozen the assets of Nestoil, Neconde, and their directors over the alleged $1bn debt. The judge held that the ex parte order had expired since an interim freezing order lapses 14 days after an application to discharge it is filed, according to the Federal High Court Rules.
Dissatisfied with that decision, the appellants approached the Court of Appeal. In a motion dated 26 November 2025, they sought a restorative injunction to reverse all steps taken after the lower court’s ruling. Justice Yargata Nimpar granted the request and immediately restored the receivership process, which cleared the way for the occupation of Nestoil’s headquarters. The court also barred interference with the receiver’s duties and paused related proceedings at the Federal High Court.
Hearing on the substantive appeal was fixed for 4 December 2025, but the matter took a dramatic turn when it was called on Thursday.
Trouble began when appearances were announced. Senior lawyers Babajide Koku (SAN) and Kunle Ogunba (SAN) both appeared for the appellants, creating initial confusion. The tension increased when Ayoola Ajayi (SAN) announced his appearance for Nestoil, while Ayo Olorunfemi (SAN) announced for Neconde.
Almost at the same time, two other senior lawyers who had represented the firms at the lower court—Dr Muiz Banire (SAN) and Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN)—also announced their appearances. This brought the issue of representation to the centre of the day’s proceedings.
Further entries were made by Chinonye Obiagwu (SAN) and Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN), who appeared for the third and fourth defendants, while Oluwakemi Balogun (SAN) appeared as an interested party.
Ajayi insisted that there was a genuine dispute over who was validly authorised to represent Nestoil and Neconde, urging the court to settle the issue before moving forward. Banire countered that there was no valid challenge to his representation, stressing that he remained counsel of record from the lower court.
Chief Olanipekun expressed disappointment over the situation, describing it as unprecedented in his nearly five decades of legal practice. “I am embarrassed. In my 49 years of practice, I have never had a dispute over representation with any lawyer in court,” he said. He attributed the confusion to alleged tactics by the appellants, whom he accused of serving court processes on lawyers appointed by the receiver, instead of serving counsel of record.
Olanipekun insisted that he remained counsel for Neconde since no application challenging his representation had been heard or served on him.
After listening to all sides, Justice Nimpar ruled that the matter of legal representation must be resolved before any further steps could be taken in the appeal. In her bench ruling, she stated, “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 that responses be filed before the next adjourned date of 15 January 2026. The court explained that it would not sit the following week due to a scheduled programme in Abuja, after which the Christmas vacation would begin.
Justice Nimpar added that when the court resumes in January, it would be ready to address all pending matters with “full energy.”
