By Innocent Anaba
LAGOS — THE legal battle between Providus Bank Plc and Plural Oil Marketing Limited has intensified as the company and its directors have approached a Federal High Court in Lagos, seeking to vacate an ex-parte order that froze their bank accounts across multiple financial institutions.
The trial judge in the matter is Justice Akintayo Aluko.
In a motion on notice, the defendants, Plural Oil Marketing Limited, Babatunde Oyefolu and Oluwatobiloba Oyefolu, described the ex-parte order, granted on October 7, 2025, as unlawful, oppressive and obtained in violation of their constitutional right to fair hearing.
The defendants/applicants argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the order because it was issued before they were served with any originating processes, noting that even the order itself directed the plaintiff to effect substituted service, which was clear evidence that service had not yet been carried out at the time the accounts were frozen.
Plural Oil stated that it only became aware of the freezing directive on October 9, 2025, when various banks forwarded compliance notices from the bank’s solicitors.
The company described the development as a “textbook breach” of Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the right to be heard before adverse judicial steps are taken.
They also accused the bank of failing to make the full and frank disclosure required when seeking ex-parte orders.
In their affidavit, they outlined several material facts the bank allegedly withheld, including “That Plural Oil had already paid N891,036,000 towards the disputed facility and that the company formally requested reconciliation and restructuring on the same day the bank approached the court.”
The company also argued that the bank had earlier petitioned the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, leading to the Managing Director’s seven-day detention in what they described as dehumanising conditions, despite the matter being civil in nature.
Plural Oil further contended that the order extended far beyond permissible preservation measures by freezing all accounts linked to the BVNs of the 2nd and 3rd applicants, including accounts in which they merely served as signatories and which belonged to third parties not connected to the dispute.
Responding to reports suggesting that Plural Oil diverted base oil financed through Letters of Credit, the company denied the claim, saying that the products were sold in the ordinary course of business and the proceeds remitted to the bank.
The company also faulted the bank’s earlier petition to the EFCC, which led to the MD’s prolonged detention, describing the action as an abuse of process intended to intimidate the company and compel concessions outside civil banking procedures.
Meanwhile, further hearing in the matter has been adjourned till November 28.
The post Court asked to set aside order freezing Plural Oil accounts appeared first on Vanguard News.
