Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke of the Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos, has fixed April 30, 2026, to rule on an application by Petrocam Trading Nigeria Ltd seeking to vacate an interim order freezing its bank accounts over an alleged ₦9.05 billion debt claimed by Zenith Bank Plc.
The freezing order was earlier granted in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/393/2026 following an ex parte application by Zenith Bank, aimed at preserving funds allegedly owed by Petrocam and its principal, Patrick Ilo, as of May 31, 2025.
At the resumed hearing on Thursday, Petrocam’s counsel, Gboyega Oyewole (SAN), alongside S. Isaac John (SAN), Kolawole Salami and Ademola Adefolaju, urged the court to discharge the interim injunction granted on March 3, 2026.
Oyewole argued that the order was obtained through the suppression of material facts and has inflicted severe financial hardship on the company.
According to him, Petrocam is a viable business with extensive nationwide operations, and the freezing of its accounts has crippled its day-to-day activities without any real risk that the company would dissipate its assets.
‘We Are Not Indebted’ – Petrocam
In an affidavit deposed to by the company’s Head of Trade, Sunmola Omolara, Petrocam maintained that it is not indebted to Zenith Bank, insisting that all obligations under a 2014 import finance facility have been fully liquidated.
The company stated that over ₦7.4 billion in petroleum sales proceeds were remitted directly to the bank, supported by bank statements and domiciliation records involving major industry players such as Total Nigeria Plc and Oando Plc.
Petrocam explained that the facility was structured to be repaid through petroleum sales proceeds and Sovereign Debt Notes issued under the Federal Government’s fuel subsidy regime.
The firm attributed any temporary financing gaps to delays by the Federal Government in servicing the Sovereign Debt Notes, adding that the obligations were eventually settled between 2019 and 2020.
It further claimed that interest on the short-term facility was cancelled, with payments made through the Debt Management Office.
The defendants stressed that Zenith Bank was fully aware of and actively participated in the subsidy-backed financing arrangement.
A central plank of Petrocam’s case is the allegation that Zenith Bank failed to comply with a directive of the Central Bank of Nigeria mandating a 100 per cent interest waiver on subsidy-related debts.
The company argued that while other banks complied with the directive, Zenith allegedly continued to impose interest charges on the facility up to 2023 and 2024.
Petrocam further claimed that regulatory panels had directed the bank to refund excess charges, but that the bank failed to comply with those directives.
‘Letter Of Non-indebtedness Contradicts Claim’
In support of its position, Petrocam tendered a Letter of Non-Indebtedness dated December 16, 2024, allegedly issued by Zenith Bank.
The document, according to the defendants, confirmed that Petrocam’s account was in credit and that it was not indebted to the bank, except for a contingent liability tied to a bank guarantee.
Relying on this letter, the defendants argued that Zenith Bank’s subsequent claim of a ₦9bn debt is contradictory and undermines the legal basis for the freezing order.
Petrocam also challenged the procedure leading to the suit, contending that no valid demand notice was issued prior to the commencement of the action.
It described the alleged demand letter, which surfaced in June 2025 and was reportedly sent to the wrong address, as an afterthought.
The company maintained that its banking relationship with Zenith Bank had remained cordial over the years, with no prior indication of any outstanding indebtedness.
Beyond disputing the debt, the defendants accused Zenith Bank of negligence in managing the transaction.
They alleged that the bank failed to secure the foreign exchange required to liquidate letters of credit, continued to impose charges despite regulatory interventions, and did not properly account for funds remitted under the facility.
According to them, these actions significantly contributed to the dispute.
The second defendant, Patrick Ilo, is also seeking to have his name struck out of the suit.
He contended that he neither provided a personal guarantee nor assumed personal liability for the facility, maintaining that he acted solely as an agent of Petrocam.
He also denied allegations of fraud or diversion of funds, insisting that all inflows were domiciled with Zenith Bank, making any diversion impossible.
In their written address, the defendants argued that Zenith Bank failed to satisfy the legal conditions for the grant of an interlocutory injunction.
They maintained that no serious issue exists for trial, particularly in light of the bank’s alleged letter confirming non-indebtedness.
They further argued that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of Petrocam, which faces operational paralysis if the freezing order remains, whereas the bank can be adequately compensated in damages if it ultimately succeeds.
The defendants also contended that the injunction was obtained in bad faith, without full disclosure of material facts, and without an undertaking as to damages.
Opposing the application, counsel to Zenith Bank, Ajibola Aribisala (SAN), urged the court to dismiss Petrocam’s application and retain the freezing order.
Aribisala argued that the bank’s claim is founded on a subsisting indebtedness, maintaining that the issues raised by the defendants are matters for trial and do not justify setting aside the interim order at this stage.
He further submitted that the preservation order was necessary to protect the res in dispute, warning that lifting the restriction on the accounts could jeopardise the bank’s chances of recovering the alleged debt if judgment is eventually entered in its favour.
After taking arguments from both parties, Justice Aneke adjourned the matter to April 30, 2026, for ruling.
