Two Nigerian energy companies, Nestoil Limited and Neconde Energy Limited, have accused the judiciary of grave injustice following a ruling by the Court of Appeal that disqualified their chosen legal counsel in an ongoing debt recovery dispute—an outcome they say amounts to a denial of their constitutional right to fair hearing and legal representation.
In a strongly worded statement released after the ruling, the companies said the decision effectively strips them of the right to appoint lawyers of their choice to defend claims brought against them by FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited and First Trustees Limited.
“This is a glaring case of injustice, denial of hearing and denial of the right to defend oneself,” the statement said.
Origins of the Dispute
The case began as an alleged debt recovery action filed at the Federal High Court, Lagos, by FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited and First Trustees Limited against Nestoil, Neconde, and individual defendants Ernest Azudialu-Obiejesi and Nnenna Obiejesi, in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/2127/2025.
According to the defendants, the originating processes were served at their Lagos office alongside far-reaching ex parte orders issued on October 22, 2025—orders they say were obtained without notice and without allowing them to be heard.
Upon being served, the defendants said they promptly engaged senior and reputable legal practitioners, including M.A. Banire & Associates, Wole Olanipekun & Co., Afe Babalola & Co., and Chief Chino Obiagu, SAN.
Their lawyers immediately moved to challenge the ex parte orders and sought to have the substantive matter heard on notice. The Federal High Court subsequently set aside the ex parte orders and fixed the case for hearing on December 12, 2025.
Days after that ruling, the plaintiffs allegedly filed another ex parte application—this time at the Court of Appeal—and obtained fresh orders within 24 hours. The defendants say they were again not heard before the orders were granted.
They further allege that the plaintiffs had earlier filed a motion on notice at the Court of Appeal but withdrew it without their knowledge, allegedly to clear the way for the ex parte application.
The dispute escalated when the plaintiffs, acting through a person described as a court-appointed receiver, filed an application seeking the Court of Appeal’s disqualification of the lawyers representing Nestoil and Neconde, and authorising the receiver to appoint new lawyers on their behalf.
The companies insist that no valid receivership exists and that the matter before the court remains a straightforward debt recovery action.
According to the statement, the Court of Appeal ruled that Nestoil and Neconde had no right to appoint lawyers of their choosing and that legal representation could instead be selected by the receiver allegedly appointed at the instance of the plaintiffs themselves.
“The implication,” the companies said, “is that the same plaintiffs who sued us will now appoint the lawyers meant to defend us against their own claims.”
They described the ruling as baffling and unprecedented, arguing that it violates fundamental principles of justice, fairness and the right to counsel.
“How a plaintiff can appoint lawyers to defend the defendants he has sued defies imagination,” the statement said, adding that the issue has now been left to the “court of public opinion.”
Allegations of Smear Campaign
The companies also accused the plaintiffs of sponsoring what they described as a campaign of false and malicious media reports, including unsubstantiated allegations of bribery against their lawyers and conflicting claims about the size of the alleged debt.
They denied all allegations of wrongdoing and said the figures being circulated were fictitious.
‘We Will Not Allow This to Stand’
Despite the ruling, Nestoil and Neconde said they remain determined to challenge what they view as a dangerous precedent.
“We will not allow this injustice to slip by,” the statement said. “Failure to fight injustice is to assist in perpetuating it.”
Legal analysts say the controversy raises far-reaching questions about due process, the limits of ex parte orders, and whether a court can compel defendants to accept legal representation chosen by parties with adverse interests—issues likely to provoke further legal and public scrutiny in the weeks ahead.
The full text of the statement reads:
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON THE DISQUALIFICATION OF NESTOIL’S LAWYERS.
A GLARING CASE OF INJUSTICE, DENIAL OF HEARING AND DENIAL OF RIGHT TO DEFEND ONESELF.
Following the recent ruling of the Court of Appeal disqualifying the lawyers appointed by the respective organisations, NESTOIL LIMITED and NECONDE ENERGY LIMITED in the alleged debt recovery litigation instituted by the duo of FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited and First Trustees Limited, it has become necessary for us to clarify the facts for the public and set the record straight.
This matter began as an alleged debt recovery action instituted by First Merchant Bank Limited and and First Trustees Limited against our organisations NESTOIL, NECONDE and Ernest Azudialu-Obiejesi and Nnenna Obiejesi in Suit No.: FHC/L/CS/2127/2025. We were served with the originating processes filed in the matter at the office address at 41/42 Akin Adesola Street, Victoria Island, Lagos, together with an ex parte order dated 22 October 2025 issued by the Federal High Court.
Upon being served, each of us (the Defendants) promptly engaged reputable legal practitioners to represent us, including M. A. Banire & Associates ( for NESTOIL); Wole Olanipekun & Co. (for NECONDE); Afe Babalola & Co. (for Ernest Azudialu-Obiejesi); and Chief Chino Obiagu, SAN (for Nnenna Obiejesi). However, far-reaching ex parte orders were obtained behind us and without affording us the benefit of being heard. When we became aware of these developments, our lawyers immediately challenged the ex parte orders and applied for them to be set aside. They also took steps to ensure that the substantive suit filed against us was fixed for hearing on 12 December 2025.
Within days after the ruling of the Federal High Court setting aside the ex parte orders and fixing the substantive matter for December 12, 2025, the Plaintiffs (FBNQuest) filed another Motion , ex parte again, at the Court of Appeal, and obtained, within 24 hours of filing the said Motion Ex Parte, fresh ex parte orders against us in a manner we still find incomprehensible till date. Our respective lawyers immediately challenged the validity of these ex parte orders. Interestingly, the lawyers to the Plaintiffs had earlier filed and served a Motion on Notice against us at the Court of Appeal which they withdrew behind us to pave way for their Motion Ex Parte. However, the Plaintiffs, acting through the person they purportedly appointed as receiver, filed another Motion at the Court of Appeal claiming that our lawyers (for NESTOIL and NECONDE) should be disqualified from representing us and that they, through their appointed receiver, should be the ones to appoint lawyers for us in an alleged debt recovery matter they instituted against us. We must note that as far as we are concerned, this alleged receivership is not in existence. The matter before the Court, as we have been made to understand by our lawyers, both internally and externally, is purely an alleged debt recovery action.
Our lawyers duly contested the application seeking to disqualify them from representing us in this alleged debt recovery matter and supplant their representation with lawyers appointed by the appointee of the alleged creditors. Bewilderingly, our lawyers informed us that the Court of Appeal delivered its ruling yesterday wherein the Court of Appeal said that WE HAVE NO RIGHT to appoint lawyers that will defend the case against us. The implication of the Court of Appeal ruling is that the Plaintiffs (FirstBank Merchant Bank Limited and First Trustees Limited) who appointed the so called receiver, are the same persons that will (through their appointed receiver) appoint lawyers to defend the case on our behalf against the Plaintiffs. How the plaintiff will be the one to appoint lawyers to defend the defendants he has sued baffles the imagination. The fairness and justice in this we just must leave to the court of public opinion for now.
Hitherto, these same Plaintiffs have been strenuously trying to smear our lawyers and our respective companies by falsely alleging bribery which never existed and quoting different fictitious alleged bank debt figures.
The avalanche of malicious and false stories being sponsored and circulated on online media is unprecedented.
It is however our firm resolve that this injustice that we have no right to defend ourselves, shall not be allowed to slip by ,because failure to fight against injustice is assisting to perpetuate same.
