In set above is the MD/CEO of First Bank of Nigeria Plc, Olusegun Alebiosu, (Appointed in June, 2024).
By Advocatenewsng.com (09064186047)
FIRST Bank of Nigeria Plc, acting in connivance with Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, may have its reputation reexamined and put to test by a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos if it reaches that decision, as it is being asked to move against the giant commercial bank any time soon, for failing to comply with the order of the court urging it to respect the nullification of a mareva interim injunction it hitherto obeyed when it was granted on December 19, 2024, and allow unrestrained access to the accounts of three of its major customers, in the manner the other affected 30 commercial banks and financial institutions acted in response to the vacation of the interim order.
The customers who went to court to seek remedy on the interim order are: Resurrection Power Investments Limited; Anthony Ejike Mbaka and Ogbuefi Shedrach, who Union Bank brought to court over financial misunderstanding on a loan, and eventually obtained a mareva interim injunction against them and 31 commercial banks as respondents, including First Bank, where the defendants’ accounts are domiciled.
The court was said to have granted the ex parte application after the plaintiff, Union Bank, allegedly deceived the court by non-disclosure of some material facts which the court ought to know before deciding to grant the injunction or refuse it.
On the strength of the material facts presented by the plaintiff, the Union Bank, in which there was obvious misinformation, suppression and concealment of facts as contained in its process used to obtain the maeva injunction on December 19, 2024 from the court sitting before Justice Aluko, the defendants/applicants: Resurrection Power Investment Limited; Anthony Ejike Mbaka and Ogbuefi Shedrach, (hereby referred to as customers to both Union Bank and First Bank Plc), approached the court again with a motion on notice filed on January 6, 2025 to complain that the court was deceived in granting the mareva interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff, Union Bank, against the defendants in that the plaintiff deliberately concealed, suppressed and misrepresented the material facts which the court ought to know before granting or refusing the interim order of mareva injunction.
The motion on notice asked for two major prayers:
. An order of the court discharging the order of interim mareva injunction dated 19th December, 2024, and,
. An order staying the execution of the interim order of mareva injunction made by the court and dated 19th December, 2024 pending the determination of the motion on notice.
These two prayers succeeded when on March 28, 2025, the same court sitting before Justice Yellim Bogoro, after hearing both parties on the motion on notice brought by the defendants/applicants, delivered a well- researched ruling in which she discharged and stayed further execution of the order of interim mareva injunction granted on December 19, 2024 by Justice Aluko.
Here is part of the court’s resolution in discharging the order: The judge said: “Having considered this motion, the affidavit in support and the submissions of counsel, the issue for determination is whether or not the order of mareva injunction could be predicated on mere terms of settlement which was not adopted by the court as the judgment of the court, (as complained by the defendants/applicants).
“The grounds of this application are that the plaintiff, (Union Bank), misrepresented and suppressed facts this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the suit, there was no judgment of court upon which the terms of settlement could be predicated.”
She continued: “Before I make progress, let me quickly add at this juncture that the courts have stated the purpose of mareva injunction and it is as held in Asset Management Group Limited v. Genesis Corp Limited & Ors (2000) LPELR – 12050.”
Having reviewed the whole proceedings and cited several authorities to back her decision, Justice Bogoro then ruled: “For the reason that material facts were not disclosed to the court and the fact that there is no evidence of steps being taken by the defendants to dissipate the ‘res’, (the subject matter), I do not think the ex-parte application can be sustained.
“In view of this therefore, I hereby grant the application and discharge the ex-parte interim order of mareva injunction made by this court on 19th December, 2024.
The motion on notice of the defendants/applicants which was granted by the court was filed and argued by Mr. Edwin Anikwem, SAN, with Miss Tosin Omoleke and Eric Eziamaka supporting the effort, while Mr. R.O. Adeyemo appeared for the plaintiff, Union Bank.
In response to the shock of the court’s ruling vacating the order of interim mareva injunction, the plaintiff/defendant, Union Bank, through its lawyers, Temilolu Adamolekun and six others rushed to the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, to lodge a complaint, mainly to set aside the ruling/order of the lower court made on March 28, 2025.
The bank raised grounds of errors by the lower court to include: that ‘the ruling of the lower court is against the weight of evidence presented before it.
. ‘That the ruling of the lower court is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence presented before it.
Basking in the euphoria of this appeal and citing the authority of the Military Governor of Lagos State v. Chukwuemeka Ojukwu, as reported on March 3, 1986, Part 18, 1 N.W.L.R., 550 – 694 at page 44; Union Bank on April 2, 2025 caused a letter to be authored to the managing director of First Bank of Nigeria Plc, asking him to ignore the vacation of the interim order as it has appealed against it.
The letter written by Union Bank lawyers, Temilolu Adamolekun & Co, and signed by one Maryjane Eluemunor of counsel, reads in part:
. “We act as counsel to Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, (hearinafter referred to as our client) and on whose instruction we write.
. “Please be informed that consequent upon the ruling of 28th March, 2025 delivered by Justice Yellim Bogoro of the Federal High Court Lagos, in the above captioned suit, we have filed a notice of appeal and a motion for injunction pending appeal both dated 28th March, 2025.
“By these applications and on the decided authority of Military Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR [PT. 18] @ page 44, it is the law that the status quo be maintained until the determination of the motion for injunction pending appeal or the appeal, (whichever comes first).
“In furtherance to the above, any steps taken by you in releasing and /or dealing with the defendants’ (Resurrection Power Investments Limited, Anthony Ejike Mbaka and Ogbuefi Shedrach) funds in your custody would amount to a contemptuous act and we shall be constrained to commence contempt proceedings against you immediately.
The letter further stated: “We hereby advise that the funds be held in your custody until the final determination of our client’s application for injunction pending appeal or appeal (whichever comes first), as same will be viewed as a persistent hold on the rule of law.
“In view of all these, we look forward to your co-operation and show of respect for the rule of law and course of justice in relation to the forgoing and assure you of the highest regards we have for your organization.”
Relying on this letter, First Bank ignored the court order vacating the interim injunction and shut out the customers (the defendants in the Union Bank’s matter) from accessing their accounts with it thereby risking the threat to contempt of court as the defendants/applicants plan to institute.
But this attitude of First Bank Nigeria Plc did not go down well with their customers, and the defendants/applicants who got the interim mareva injunction vacated on March 28, 2025, and therefore caused their own lawyer, Mr. Edwin Anikwem, SAN, to write the commercial bank to remind it of the implication of dishonouring an order of the court, especially as the other 30 banks, including Access Bank Plc, Fidelity Bank Plc, FCMB, Guarantee Trust Bank, GTB, Eco Bank Plc, Polaris Bank, UBA Plc, Zenith Bank Plc and Sterling Bank Plc, among others have since complied with the order of court.
On April 14, 2025, their lawyer, Mr. Anikwem, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, addressed a six-paragraph letter of reminder to the managing director of First Bank of Nigeria Plc, calling his attention to the vacation of the interim order of mareva injunction made on March 28, 2025 and reminding him of the dangers of ignoring a court order and complying with an instruction from a letter by Union Bank Plc, a party in the suit involving his clients.
The said letter reads: “We remain solicitors to the defendants in this suit. We have been informed by the second defendant, (Anthony Ejike Mbaka), that in spite of the service of the ruling of 28th March, 2025 by Hon. Justice Y. Bogoro vacating the order of mareva injunction and also dismissing the plaintiff’s motion on notice for injunction, you have refused to allow the 2nd defendant access his account with your bank on the ground that Union Bank of Nigeria Plc appealed pursuant to a letter dated 2nd April, 2025 by the plaintiff’s solicitors.
“It is on record that you acted spontaneously when you were served by the plaintiff with the interim order of mareva injunction dated 19th December, 2024.
“Now that you have been served the order of court vacating the said interim order of mareva injunction on the 3rd of April, 2025 you have neglected to obey the order of court on the ground that there is an appeal pending.
“By the provision of Section 17 of the Court of Appeal Act, “An appeal under this part of this Act shall not operate as a stay of execution……”
He concludes: “Please take notice that unless you comply forthwith with the order of court made on the 28th March, 2025, we shall proceed against you by filing contempt proceedings against you in the court of law.”
First Bank Plc is yet to respond to this letter or comply with the order of court vacating the interim mareva injunction made on December 19, 2024.
