Proceedings at the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, were on Thursday stalled following a dispute among senior lawyers over the authorised legal representation of Nestoil Limited and Neconde Energy Limited in an appeal filed by FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited and First Trustees Limited.
The appeal is against the ruling of the Federal High Court, Lagos, which had vacated a Mareva injunction freezing the assets of Nestoil and its directors over an alleged $1 billion debt claim.
Justice Yargata Nimpar, who presided over the three-member appellate panel, directed all parties to respond to the competing applications challenging legal representation before the next adjourned date, January 15, 2026.
The dispute stems from the November 20, 2025 ruling of Justice Daniel Osiagor of the Federal High Court, who vacated the ex parte Mareva injunction, holding that the order had lapsed after the constitutionally permitted 14 days.
Aggrieved by the decision, FBNQuest Merchant Bank and First Trustees approached the Court of Appeal and, in an ex parte motion dated November 26, 2025, sought a “restorative injunction” to undo all steps taken pursuant to the lower court’s ruling.
On December 1, 2025, Justice Nimpar granted the application, paving the way for the repossession of Nestoil’s Lagos head office. The appeal court also barred interference with the receiver’s work and suspended further proceedings at the Federal High Court, fixing December 4, 2025, for hearing of the substantive motion.
However, when the appeal was called on Thursday, confusion erupted during the announcement of appearances.
Babajide Koku (SAN) appeared for the appellants alongside Kunle Ogunba (SAN). Ayoola Ajayi (SAN) announced appearance for the first respondent, Nestoil Limited, while Ayo Olorunfemi (SAN) appeared for the second respondent, Neconde Energy Limited.
This was complicated by the simultaneous appearance of Muiz Banire (SAN) and Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), who had represented Nestoil and Neconde respectively at the Federal High Court.
Chinonye Obiagwu (SAN) and Kehinde Ogunwumiju (SAN) represented the third and fourth respondents respectively, while Oluwakemi Balogun (SAN) appeared as an interested party.
Ajayi (SAN) told the court that there was an obvious dispute over who was properly authorised to represent the two firms and urged the court to resolve the issue before proceeding.
Responding, Banire (SAN) insisted that there was no challenge to his representation and that he remained counsel of record from the lower court.
Chief Olanipekun (SAN) expressed shock at the development, describing the situation 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 accused the appellants of deliberately creating confusion by serving court processes on lawyers allegedly appointed by the receiver, who were not counsel of record at the trial court.
Olanipekun further argued that since there was no pending application challenging his representation, he remained the recognised counsel for Neconde Energy Limited, adding that he had not been served with any such application.
In a bench ruling, Justice Nimpar held that the dispute over legal representation must first be resolved before any other application could be entertained.
“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 ruled.
She directed all parties to respond to the applications before the January 15, 2026 adjourned date, noting that the court would proceed on Christmas break after its final sittings connected to official programmes in Abuja.
