Nestoil Limited has engaged in a public dispute with receiver/manager Abubakar Sulu-Gambari over the legitimacy of his authority following a Supreme Court ruling that annulled a previous asset freeze. The oil company argues that the receiver's powers remain restrained by existing court orders and that his claims of unrestricted control are misleading. The legal battle involves efforts by creditors to recover over $1 billion and N430 billion in alleged debts from Nestoil, Neconde Energy, and their promoters. The Supreme Court criticized lower courts for overreach and misuse of judicial process, directing parties back to the Court of Appeal to resolve procedural issues.
Nestoil Limited is embroiled in a contentious legal standoff with Abubakar Sulu-Gambari, the receiver/manager appointed over the company and Neconde Energy in connection with alleged debt defaults.
The dispute escalated after the Supreme Court annulled an order from the Court of Appeal that had frozen the assets of Neconde, Nestoil, and their principal promoters. In a strongly worded rebuttal to a recent statement by Sulu-Gambari, Nestoil accused him of deliberately misleading the public about the scope of his authority.
The company asserted that although the receiver/manager acknowledged the Supreme Court voided the appellate court's injunctive relief, he continued to act as if that decision had no bearing on his powers. Nestoil contended that such conduct demonstrates an attempt to hoodwink the general public now that judicial cover for his receivership has been completely removed.
The Supreme Court's ruling on 10 April 2026 determined that the receiver's authority is directly tied to a pending case at the Federal High Court, meaning he cannot lawfully exercise receiver powers while that matter remains unresolved. Nestoil emphasized that the Federal High Court in Abuja, through Justice P. O Lifu, has existing orders from 1 December 2025 that restrain, suspend, and place in abeyance any actions by the receiver under the alleged Deeds of Appointment.
According to Nestoil, any suggestion that the receiver/manager possesses unrestrained power over the company or Neconde's assets is both inaccurate and contrary to current legal realities. The legal saga originated from attempts by FBN Quest Merchant Bank and First Trustees to recover debts exceeding $1 billion and N430 billion from Neconde, Nestoil, and their principal promoters, Azudialu Obiejesi and Nnenna Azudialu-Obiejesi. To secure the debt, the financial institutions appointed Sulu-Gambari as receiver/manager.
Justice Deinde Dipeolu of the Federal High Court, Lagos, subsequently granted a Mareva injunction, freezing accounts and shareholdings across more than 20 financial institutions and directing security agencies to enforce the receivership. This empowerment allowed the receiver to take possession of Nestoil's headquarters and assume control of Neconde's 40% interest in OML 42, an oil block jointly operated with NNPC Limited.
Amid allegations of bias and procedural irregularities, John Tsoho, chief judge of the Federal High Court, reassigned the case to another judge. On 20 November 2025, Justice J. Osiagor rescinded the earlier receivership enforcement order.
However, on 29 November 2025, the Court of Appeal, in a ruling by Justice Yargata Nimpar, issued a restorative injunction ex parte, reversing Justice Osiagor's decision and forbidding Nestoil, Neconde, and their agents from obstructing the receiver pending the appeal. The Supreme Court's subsequent intervention has now complicated the trajectory, as it directed all parties to return to the Court of Appeal to address a major procedural issue, leaving the legal status of the receivership in flux
Please follow us on Google to support usNestoil Neconde Energy Receiver Manager Supreme Court Asset Freeze Debt Recovery FBN Quest First Trustees Abubakar Sulu-Gambari Federal High Court Court Of Appeal Mareva Injunction OML 42 NNPC
Nigeria Latest News, Nigeria Headlines
Similar News: You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Supreme Court Overturns Court of Appeal Asset Freeze against Neconde Energy and NestoilThe Supreme Court set aside a Court of Appeal order freezing assets of Neconde Energy Limited, Nestoil Limited and two others over alleged $1.1 billion debt, ruling the appellate court exceeded its powers in granting an ex parte application. The apex court criticized the appellate court for assuming jurisdiction and misuse of judicial process. The dispute stems from debt recovery proceedings by lenders including FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited and First Trustees Limited tied to oil assets and operations. The Supreme Court's judgment overturns a series of conflicting orders, including a Federal High Court's Mareva injunction and a subsequent Court of Appeal interim restorative injunction.
Read more »
Supreme Court upholds Providus, Unity banks' mergerBeyond dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court invoked Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act to directly sanction the merger, effectively clearing the way for the transaction to proceed without further legal obstruction.
Read more »
Supreme Court annuls order freezing Nestoil, Neconde assetsA five-member panel of the court on Monday in Abuja ruled that the appeal court exceeded the limits of its power when it issued an ex parte application against the oil firms.
Read more »
High Court Sets Aside Restraining Order Against Peoples Redemption PartyA high court in Bauchi State has set aside an earlier restraining order that prevented the Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) from conducting its governorship primary election. The development comes amid legal disputes surrounding the party's preparations for the 2027 governorship election. The court issued an order directing the PRP to suspend its governorship primary and congresses following a suit filed by Barrister Idrees Safiyanu Gambo against the party, Senator Shehu Buba Umar and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). The PRP maintained that it was unaware of the order before the primary election was conducted. Concerned about the implications of the order, lawyers representing the party approached the court, urging it to vacate the earlier decision. The judge directed all parties involved in the matter to file responses to any court processes served on them within two days of receiving such documents. The court consequently set aside the earlier restraining order and adjourned the case until June 4, 2026, for hearing of the substantive motion on notice.
Read more »