Justice Akintayo Aluko of the Federal High Court in Lagos has granted an interim order freezing the {bank} accounts of Plural Oil Marketing Limited and two of its administrators over an alleged indebtedness of N3.17 billion and $835,486.76 owed to Providus Bank Limited.
The order, delivered on October 7, 2025, adopted an ex parte utility filed by Providus Bank by its counsel, Mr. Mitchel Aribisala, looking for to restrain the defendants and several other {financial} establishments from tampering with funds linked to the oil advertising firm pending the dedication of a substantive movement.
The defendants within the swimsuit, marked FHC/L/CS/2015/2025, are Plural Oil Marketing Limited, Mr. Babatunde Olukunle Oyefolu, and Ms. Oluwatobiloba Ayomide Oyefolu.
In the interim Order, Justice Aluko directed 30 industrial and service provider banks in Nigeria to instantly freeze all accounts belonging to, or related to, the defendants as much as the worth of ?3,169,133,292.27 and $835,486.76.
The affected {financial} establishments embody Access Bank, Zenith Bank, Guaranty Trust Bank, United Bank for Africa, First Bank, Stanbic IBTC, Fidelity Bank, Ecobank, and Polaris Bank, amongst others.
The choose additionally ordered the banks to put a lien or post-no-debit restriction on any account operated by the defendants, both instantly or not directly, pending the dedication of the {bank}’s movement on discover.
The order extends to accounts linked to the defendants’ Bank Verification Numbers (BVNs) — 22155183546 and 22251673428 — which had been utilized in working Plural Oil’s accounts.
In addition, the Court listed a number of digital fee platforms and settlement programs, together with the Nigerian Inter-Bank Settlement System (NIBSS), Interswitch Limited, Opay Digital Services, MoMo Payment Service Bank, Unified Payments, Hydrogen Payment Services Company, and Hope Payment Service Bank, directing them to not honour any debit directions on the affected accounts till additional order of the court docket.
Justice Aluko additionally mandated all of the respondent banks to file an affidavit of return inside seven days of service, disclosing all accounts linked to the defendants’ BVNs; the balances in every account; and the transactional historical past for the previous six months.
Furthermore, the choose granted go away to Providus Bank to serve court docket processes on the 2nd and third defendants — Babatunde and Oluwatobiloba Oyefolu — by substituted means by pasting at their final identified tackle at No. 8A, Lalupon Close, Ikoyi, Lagos.
However, the court docket declined an identical request relating to the first defendant, Plural Oil Marketing Limited, noting that as a company entity, it couldn’t be served by such means.
Justice Aluko held that the freezing order would stay in pressure pending the listening to and dedication of the movement on discover, and directed Providus Bank to file an enterprise as to damages to indemnify the defendants ought to or not it’s discovered that the order was wrongly granted.
The matter was adjourned to October 22, 2025, for listening to of the substantive utility.
Providus Bank, in its supporting Affidavit deposed to by Ms. Arith Esin, a Recovery and Remedial Officer, alleged that the defendants had been indebted to the {bank} to the tune of ?3.17 billion and $835,486.76 as of September 24, 2025.
According to the {bank}, the debt arose from a sequence of credit score amenities granted to Plural Oil Marketing Limited for the importation of Base Oil — a uncooked materials utilized in lubricant mixing — which the corporate and its administrators allegedly did not repay regardless of repeated calls for.
The Affidavit detailed how the enterprise relationship started in 2018, when the first defendant opened a present account with Providus Bank. Subsequent mortgage amenities had been granted by confirmed Letters of Credit and overdraft traces, later restructured a number of instances as time loans between 2021 and 2023 resulting from persistent default.
Providus Bank acknowledged that regardless of a number of restructurings and extensions, Plural Oil failed to fulfill its reimbursement obligations. The {bank} additional accused the defendants of unlawfully promoting financed Base Oil that had been pledged as collateral and diverting the proceeds with out remitting them towards their debt obligations.
In January 2024, the {bank} stated its officers found that the Base Oil saved at Nosak Tank Farm in Lagos had been secretly bought, opposite to the mortgage phrases that vested possession of the financed product within the {bank} till full reimbursement. The discovery prompted Providus Bank to petition the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for investigation into what it described as “fraudulent diversion and conversion” of the collateral.
Providus Bank additionally tendered copies of the private ensures executed by the 2nd and third defendants, Babatunde and Oluwatobiloba Oyefolu, who had pledged to be personally responsible for the corporate’s money owed and offered affidavits of web value as safety for the loans.
The court docket, happy that there was an pressing have to protect the funds within the defendants’ accounts to forestall dissipation of belongings, granted the interim orders pending additional proceedings.
Meanwhile, Plural Oil Marketing Limited and its director, Mr. Babatunde Olukunle Oyefolu, have approached the Court in Lagos looking for to put aside the ex parte order obtained by Providus Bank Plc freezing their {bank} accounts
In a movement on discover filed by their counsel, Dr. Sulaiman Usman (SAN), the Applicants, Plural Oil Marketing Limited and Mr. Babatunde Oyefolu are asking the court docket to vacate the order made in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/2015/2025, describing it as oppressive, unconstitutional, and obtained in breach of their elementary rights.
They argued that the order was granted with out service of the originating processes and with out credible proof linking the listed BVNs — 22155183546 and 22251673428 — to the alleged indebtedness claimed by Providus Bank.
In a 27-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Mr. Oluwatobiloba Ayomide Oyefolu, a director of the first Defendant/Applicant, the corporate stated its operations had been out of the blue disrupted on October 9, 2025, when a number of of its accounts and people of its officers had been frozen following an ex parte utility by the {bank}.
Oyefolu acknowledged that the corporate first grew to become conscious of the order when it acquired a forwarding letter dated October 9, 2025, from AOS Practice, counsel to the Plaintiff/Respondent, directing industrial banks to freeze all accounts linked to the BVNs specified within the court docket order.
He contended that the order was granted earlier than the originating processes had been even served, noting that the enrolled order itself granted go away for substituted service — confirming that no legitimate service had been effected on the time.
The deponent additional described the freezing directive as a “blanket order” extending to unrelated accounts of third events and people who weren’t events to the swimsuit.
According to him, the order amounted to judicial overreach and violated Sections 36 and 44 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which ensures the best to truthful listening to and safety from illegal deprivation of property.
Plural Oil and its director additionally argued that there was no prima facie proof linking the frozen funds to them or displaying any imminent threat of asset dissipation to justify an ex parte injunction.
They alleged that Providus Bank offered no affidavit proof or documentary proof that the funds in these accounts had been proceeds of any transaction involving the {bank}.
Mr. Oyefolu additional alleged that the Respondent mischaracterised a purely civil banking dispute as a felony matter when it earlier petitioned the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), accusing the Applicants of acquiring cash by false pretences.
He stated that following the petition, the EFCC detained him for seven days beneath dehumanising circumstances — an motion he described as a gross abuse of course of designed to embarrass and punish the Applicants earlier than any judicial dedication of legal responsibility.
