Huge Setback For Nestoil And Neconde As Supreme Court Orders Case Back To Court Of Appeal
Nestoil Limited, Neconde Energy Limited and oil magnates Ernest Azudialu-Obiejesi and Nnenna Obiejesi were dealt a setback as the Supreme Court on Monday ordered all parties to return to the Court of Appeal for resolution of a critical procedural issue.
In a ruling delivered on Monday, a five-member panel led by Justice Inyang Okoro held that the Court of Appeal must first determine which counsel are properly authorised to act for each side.
The appellate court has been instructed to hear and conclude the issue and then report its findings back to the Supreme Court on January 26, 2026.
The decision temporarily halts the much-followed debt claim, noted for the large sums at stake and the number of senior lawyers engaged by the companies, individuals, and creditors.
During the session, the justices criticised what they characterised as needless procedural tactics that prolong commercial litigation.
Justice Okoro cautioned that companies in debt should prioritise repayment rather than extending disputes through technical applications and layered appeals.
A clash over lawful representation dominated Monday’s proceedings.
For Neconde Energy, Wole Olanipekun, SAN, filed appearance, but Ayo Olorunfemi, SAN, leading Ame Ogie, contested his authority.
Similarly, Muiz Banire, SAN, appeared for Nestoil, while Ayoola Ajayi, SAN, backed by M.B. Ganiyu, challenged his mandate.
Chinonye Obiagwu, SAN, represented Ernest Azudialu-Obiejesi. For Nnenna Obiejesi, Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, led a team that included Ademola Abimbola, SAN, and Chikasolu Ojukwu, SAN.
Court-appointed Receiver/Manager Abubakar Sulu-Gambari, SAN, was also in attendance, as his role is pivotal in enforcing the disputed debt.
Creditors FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited and First Trustees were represented by Babajide Koku, SAN, Victor Ogude, SAN, and Omosanya Popoola, SAN, supported by junior counsel.
Legal analysts say the Supreme Court’s stance signals a reluctance to indulge procedural delays in high-stakes commercial cases and reinforces expectations that lower courts must resolve threshold issues quickly before escalation.
With the matter returned to the Court of Appeal, the debt recovery process remains suspended until the question of legal representation is conclusively settled.
