The Supreme Court of Nigeria has reserved judgment in an appeal filed by Neconde Energy Limited challenging a decision of the Court of Appeal, which disqualified the company’s chosen counsel in an ongoing dispute involving lenders and oil services firm, Nestoil Limited.
The five-member panel of the apex court, led by Justice Garba Lawal, adjourned the matter for judgment after taking arguments from counsel representing the parties in the appeal marked SC/CV/48B/2026.
Neconde Energy Limited is the appellant in the matter, while the respondents are FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited, First Trustees Limited, Nestoil Limited, Ernest Azudialu-Obiejesi and Nnena Azudialu-Obiejesi.
During the hearing, the appellants’ lead counsel, Bode Olanipekun (SAN), told the court that all relevant briefs had been filed and served.
He informed the court that the notice of appeal was filed on February 4 and that the appellant’s brief as well as the appellant’s reply brief on points of law and list of additional authorities had also been submitted, a position, which the apex court confirmed.
Olanipekun subsequently adopted the processes filed on behalf of the appellant and urged the apex court to allow the appeal.
According to the appellant’s brief, the dispute arose from financing arrangements involving a club of lenders to Nestoil under a Common Terms Agreement dated December 8, 2022.
The appellant in the brief claimed that as part of the transaction, Neconde provided an uncrystallised subordinated charge over receipts from its interest in OML 42 Joint Venture, which was expressly ranked below a senior charge created in favour of other lenders and would only crystallise when those senior lenders’ facility must have been fully satisfied and paid.
Neconde contended that despite the existence of the senior charge and the charge not yet crystallised or the Nestoil facility itself becoming due and payable, the first and second respondents purportedly appointed a receiver-manager over the company’s OML 42 contracts in August 2025.
The company further argued that while the validity of that appointment is still being challenged before the trial court, the Court of Appeal proceeded to grant an application that disqualified Neconde’s counsel and held that the receiver-manager had the authority to appoint counsel for the company.
Olanipekun submitted that the appellate court failed to consider several issues raised by Neconde and exceeded its jurisdiction by effectively determining who should represent the company in court.
He maintained that established legal principles recognise a litigant’s constitutional right to be represented by counsel of its choice and urged the Supreme Court to set aside the decision.
Counsel representing the Receiver, Ame Ogie, adopted his brief of argument and asked the court to dismiss the appeal.
Similarly, counsel representing the first respondent, Victor Ogude (SAN), also adopted his brief of argument and asked the court to dismiss the appeal.
Counsel for the second respondent, M. B. Ganiyu, who was appointed by the Receiver, also urged the court to dismiss the appeal.
During the proceedings, one of the justices on the panel, Justice Emmanuel Agim, drew the attention of Ogie to existing judicial precedents, cautioning that the party should not attempt to relitigate issues already settled by earlier decisions of the court.
After listening to all parties, the panel reserved judgment for a later date.
In a related appeal, SC/CV/48A/2026, counsel for the appellant, Kunle Adegoke (SAN), applied that the matter should abide by the decision of the court in SC/CV/48B/2026 since they arose from the same set of facts and events and were essentially similar.
Although the counsel appointed by the Receiver for Nestoil, Ganiyu, counsel for the 1st respondent and the counsel appointed by the Receiver for the 2nd respondent in this appeal, Ameh Ogie initially objected, the court ruled that the outcome of the second appeal would abide by its eventual judgment in SC/CV/48B/2026.
The companies explained that the dispute originated from a suit filed by a consortium of lenders at the Federal High Court, Lagos.
However, proceedings at that court were later stayed following ex parte orders obtained from the Court of Appeal by the same lenders that initiated the action.
The Supreme Court is expected to deliver its decision on the appeal at a date to be communicated to the parties, too.
In this article