United Bank for Africa Plc (UBA) has taken steps to enforce a court order against directors of WEMPCO over alleged disobedience, as the bank secured interim court protection in a separate dispute involving the alleged diversion of petroleum products valued at $242 million.
In the WEMPCO case, the Federal High Court, presided over by Justice Aluko, granted UBA’s application for substituted service of Form 49 on nine directors and individuals named as alleged contemnors.
The proceedings are intended to establish whether the individuals disobeyed an earlier court order and whether they should be committed to prison for contempt.
Those named in the application are Lewis Shui Ngor Tung, Phillip Shui Chei Tung, M.A. Ola Yusuf, Tung Lawrence Blake, Aali Aare Hadji Tokunbo, Paul Shui Po Tung, Tung Robert, C.L. Ip and Taiwo Alli.
UBA’s counsel argued that serving Form 49 on the individuals was necessary to require them to appear before the court and show cause why an order of committal should not be made against them.
The bank also alleged that WEMPCO directors and some members of staff took illegal steps in an attempt to undermine the court’s order.
Form 49 is a formal notice requiring an alleged contemnor to explain why they should not be committed to prison for disobeying a court order. The approval of substituted service allows the notice to be served through an alternative method authorised by the court.
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 alleged indebtedness to UBA in the sum of N61.45 billion.
The amount was stated in the proceedings as N61,445,695,993.76.
In a separate legal dispute, a Lagos State High Court granted interim preservative orders in favour of UBA against Vitol SA, a Switzerland-based energy trading company, and four other shipping companies over an alleged $242 million petroleum products diversion.
Justice K. A. Jose granted three prayers in the bank’s application, including requests to restrain the dissipation of assets and dealings with funds up to the disputed amount. The court stated that the prayers were granted against the second respondent only.
UBA’s lead counsel, Bode Olanipekun, SAN, had asked the court to issue the orders over the alleged wrongful release of petroleum cargoes consigned to the bank’s order in the bills of lading.
In an affidavit supporting the application, UBA’s Group Head of Recoveries and Remedial Management, Anthony Chilaka, said the bank issued a letter of credit for the benefit of Vitol to facilitate a petroleum products transaction.
He stated that the cargoes were transported to Nigeria and that the vessels’ masters issued bills of lading, which Vitol subsequently endorsed to the order of UBA before handing over the original documents to the bank.
According to the bank, the endorsement entitled it to take possession of the cargoes upon completion of the voyage.
However, UBA alleged that it did not receive the gasoil despite the completion of the voyage, claiming that the products were instead diverted for the benefit of another party.
“The applicant has not been given possession of the gasoil despite completion of the voyage,” the affidavit stated.
The bank argued that the alleged non-delivery amounted to conversion and negligence, adding that the respondents failed to meet their obligations under the transaction and shipping arrangements.
UBA is seeking to establish in the substantive proceedings that Vitol SA and the vessel owners are liable for alleged conversion, misrepresentation and negligence.
The application was brought under Order 43 Rule 1 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019 and Lagos State High Court Practice Direction No. 2 of 2019.
The bank also cited 34 financial institutions and public agencies, including commercial banks, merchant banks, microfinance banks, the Nigerian Ports Authority and the Nigeria Customs Service, in connection with the application.
The two cases form part of UBA’s legal efforts to protect its financial interests, recover alleged outstanding obligations and pursue remedies over disputed assets and transactions. The allegations in both matters remain subject to determination by the courts.
Leave a Reply