The orders were granted last Thursday by Justice K. A. Jose following an application by UBA, which accused Vitol and the other respondents of wrongfully releasing petroleum products covered by bills of lading endorsed to the bank’s order.
UBA’s lead counsel, Bode Olanipekun (SAN), urged the court to grant the interim reliefs to preserve assets and prevent the dissipation of funds pending the determination of the substantive dispute.
In her ruling, Justice Jose granted three of the prayers sought by the bank, including requests to restrain the dissipation of assets and dealings in funds up to the disputed amount.
“Prayers one to three are granted as prayed against the second respondent only,” the judge ruled.
The application was brought under Order 43 Rule 1 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019 and the Lagos State High Court Practice Direction No. 2 of 2019.
In the substantive suit, UBA is seeking to establish the alleged liability of Vitol SA and the owners of the vessels involved in the transactions for conversion, misrepresentation and negligence arising from the non-delivery of the petroleum products.
The bank also cited 34 financial institutions and public agencies in connection with the application. Those named include commercial banks, merchant banks, microfinance banks, the Nigerian Ports Authority and the Nigeria Customs Service.
UBA alleges non-delivery of gasoil cargo
In an affidavit supporting the application, UBA’s Group Head of Recoveries and Remedial Management, Anthony Chilaka, said the bank had issued a letter of credit in favour of Vitol SA to facilitate a petroleum products transaction.
According to the affidavit, the cargo was transported to Nigeria, while the masters of the vessels issued several bills of lading covering the shipments.
Chilaka alleged that Vitol subsequently endorsed the bills of lading “to the order of” UBA and delivered the original documents to the bank.
UBA maintained that the endorsement entitled it to take possession of the cargo upon completion of the voyage.
However, the bank alleged that the gasoil was not delivered despite the vessels completing their journeys.
“The applicant has not been given possession of the gasoil despite completion of the voyage,” the affidavit stated.
UBA further alleged that the cargo was instead put to the use of another party, arguing that the failure to deliver the products amounted to conversion and negligence.
The bank contended that the respondents had obligations arising from the underlying transaction and the endorsement of the shipping documents but failed to fulfil them.
It also alleged that cargoes linked to the transactions were diverted to other parties after the completion of their voyages rather than being delivered to UBA.
The allegations form part of the issues to be determined in the substantive proceedings.
Court approves substituted service on Wempco directors
In a related development, the Federal High Court, presided over by Justice Aluko, granted UBA’s application for substituted service of Form 49 on directors of Wempco named as alleged contemnors in the case of UBA v. Wempco.
The application relates to proceedings seeking to determine whether the individuals allegedly disobeyed a court order and whether an order committing them to prison for contempt should be made.
The directors named in the proceedings are Lewis ShuiNgor Tung, Phillip ShuiChei Tung, M.A. Ola Yusuf, Tung Lawrence Blake, Aali Aare HadjiTokunbo, Paul Shui Po Tung, Tung Robert, C.L. Ip and TaiwoAlli.
UBA’s counsel argued that serving Form 49 on the individuals was necessary to give them notice to appear before the court and explain why an order of committal should not be issued against them.
The bank’s counsel also alleged that Wempco’s directors and some members of staff had taken unlawful steps to undermine the court’s order.
The approval of substituted service provides a procedural means of bringing the notice to the attention of the named individuals in line with the court’s directions.
Form 49 is a formal notice requiring an alleged contemnor to show cause why they should not be committed to prison for alleged disobedience of a court order.
The Federal High Court had earlier granted a Mareva injunction and appointed a receiver/manager over some of Wempco’s assets following the company’s reported indebtedness to UBA of N61,445,695,993.76.
The contempt proceedings are expected to address the allegations of disobedience against the named individuals, while the substantive dispute concerns the enforcement of the court’s orders and the bank’s recovery efforts.
