Justice K. A. Jose granted three prayers in UBA’s application, including requests to prevent the dissipation of assets and restrict dealings in funds up to the disputed amount. However, the judge’s ruling expressly stated that the prayers were granted against the second respondent only.

“Prayers 1–3 are granted as prayed against the second respondent only,” the judge ruled.

UBA had approached the court over what it described as the wrongful release of petroleum cargoes that were consigned to the bank’s order under the relevant bills of lading. The bank is seeking to establish in the substantive proceedings that Vitol SA and the owners of the vessels involved are liable for alleged conversion, misrepresentation and negligence arising from the non-delivery of the products.

Bode Olanipekun, SAN, lead counsel to UBA, urged the court to grant the interim orders to protect the bank’s interests while the dispute proceeds.

According to an affidavit filed in support of the application by Anthony Chilaka, UBA’s Group Head of Recoveries and Remedial Management, the bank issued a letter of credit in favour of Vitol SA to facilitate a petroleum products transaction.

Chilaka stated that the cargo was transported to Nigeria, where the vessels’ masters issued bills of lading. He said Vitol subsequently endorsed the documents in favour of UBA and handed the original copies to the bank.

UBA maintained that the endorsement entitled it to take possession of the cargo after the vessels completed their voyages. However, the bank alleged that it did not receive the gasoil despite the completion of the voyages.

“The applicant has not been given possession of the gasoil despite completion of the voyage,” the affidavit stated.

The bank further alleged that the cargo was released for the benefit of another party instead of being delivered to it. UBA argued that the failure to hand over the products breached obligations arising from the transaction and the shipping documents.

The application was filed under Order 43, Rule 1 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019 and Lagos State High Court Practice Direction No. 2 of 2019.

UBA also cited 34 financial institutions and public agencies in connection with the application, including commercial banks, merchant banks, microfinance banks, the Nigerian Ports Authority and the Nigeria Customs Service.

The interim ruling does not amount to a final determination of the allegations. The claims against the respondents remain subject to the substantive court proceedings.

Reporting by TalkNaijaMedia