Court Fixes April 30 for Petrocam-Zenith Ruling
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 N9.05 billion debt claimed by Zenith Bank Plc.
The court had earlier granted the freezing order in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/393/2026 following an ex parte application by the bank, aimed at preserving funds allegedly owed by Petrocam and its principal, Patrick Ilo, as of May 31, 2025. The order, issued on March 3, 2026, restrains the defendants from withdrawing, transferring, or dissipating funds up to N9,057,511,855.63 pending the determination of the substantive suit. The court also directed all financial institutions within its jurisdiction to place a lien or “Post-No-Debit” restriction on all accounts linked to Bank Verification Number 22141926401, which the bank alleged is used by Ilo to operate Petrocam’s accounts. The order extends to the Nigeria Inter-Bank Settlement System (NIBSS), Interswitch Limited, and Interswitch Financial Inclusion Services Limited.
At the resumed hearing, Petrocam’s counsel, Gboyega Oyewole (SAN), alongside Isaac John (SAN), Kolawole Salami, and Ademola Adefolaju, urged the court to discharge the interim injunction. 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 remains a viable business with extensive operations nationwide, and the freezing of its accounts has crippled its day-to-day activities without any real risk of dissipation of assets.
In an affidavit deposed to by the company’s Head of Trade, Sunmola Omolara, Petrocam denied owing the bank, insisting that all obligations under a 2014 import finance facility have been fully liquidated. The company stated that over N7.4 billion in petroleum sales proceeds were remitted directly to Zenith 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. It attributed any temporary financing gaps to delays by the Federal Government in servicing the notes, adding that the obligations were eventually settled between 2019 and 2020. The company claimed that interest on the short-term facility was cancelled, with payments made through the Debt Management Office, and stressed that Zenith Bank was fully aware of and actively participated in the subsidy-backed 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, 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.
In support of its position, the company 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 the bank’s subsequent claim of a N9.05 billion 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 a purported demand letter, which surfaced in June 2025 and was reportedly sent to a wrong address, as an afterthought. The company accused the bank of negligence in managing the transaction, including failure to secure foreign exchange for letters of credit, continued imposition of charges despite regulatory interventions, and improper accounting for funds remitted under the facility.
The second defendant, Patrick Ilo, also asked the court to strike out his name from the suit, arguing that he neither provided a personal guarantee nor assumed personal liability for the facility. He maintained that he acted solely as an agent of Petrocam and denied allegations of fraud or diversion of funds.
In their written address, the defendants argued that Zenith Bank failed to meet the legal threshold for the grant of an interlocutory injunction, insisting that no serious issue exists for trial, particularly in light of the alleged letter confirming non-indebtedness. They also contended that the balance of convenience favours Petrocam, which faces operational paralysis if the freezing order subsists, while the bank can be compensated in damages if it succeeds at trial.
Opposing the application, counsel to Zenith Bank, Chief Ajibola Aribisala (SAN), urged the court to dismiss Petrocam’s application and retain the freezing order. Aribisala argued that the bank’s claim was based on a subsisting indebtedness and that the issues raised by the defendants were substantive matters for trial, not grounds to set aside the interim order. He further submitted that the preservation order was necessary to protect the res (matter) in dispute, warning that lifting the restriction could jeopardise the bank’s chances of recovering the alleged debt if judgment is eventually entered in its favour.
After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Aneke adjourned the matter to April 30, 2026, for ruling.