The Lagos State High Court last Thursday granted interim preservative orders, including a Mareva injunction, against Vitol S.A., a Switzerland-based energy trading company, and four other shipping companies in favour of United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc.
The bank accused Vitol of wrongfully releasing cargoes of petroleum products consigned to the order of UBA in the bills of lading.
Addressing the court, Bode Olanipekun, SAN, lead counsel for UBA, urged the court to grant the interim preservative orders against Vitol and the other shipping companies.
In a ruling on the application, the presiding judge, Justice K. A. Jose, granted three prayers in UBA’s application, including requests to restrain the dissipation of assets and dealings in funds up to the disputed amount by Vitol S.A.
“Prayers 1–3 are granted as prayed against the 2nd Respondent only,” the judge ruled.
The application was brought pursuant to Order 43, Rule 1 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019, and the Lagos State High Court Practice Direction No. 2 of 2019.
In the substantive proceedings, UBA is seeking to establish that Vitol S.A. and the owners of the vessels are liable for alleged conversion, misrepresentation and negligence arising from the non-delivery of the petroleum products.
UBA 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.
In an affidavit supporting the application, UBA’s Group Head of Recoveries and Remedial Management, Anthony Chilaka, stated that the bank issued a letter of credit in favour of Vitol S.A. to facilitate a petroleum products transaction.
UBA alleged that the cargo was transported to Nigeria and that the vessels’ masters issued several bills of lading.
The bank further alleged that Vitol subsequently endorsed the bills of lading “to the order of” UBA and handed over the original copies to the bank.
UBA maintained that the endorsement entitled it to take possession of the cargo upon completion of the voyage.
However, Chilaka stated that the bank had not received the gasoil despite the completion of the voyage.
“The applicant has not been given possession of the gasoil despite completion of the voyage,” the affidavit stated.
UBA alleged that the cargo was instead put to the use of another party, contending that the respondents’ failure to deliver it amounted to conversion and negligence.
The bank argued that the respondents had obligations arising from the transaction and the endorsement of the shipping documents, which it claimed they failed to fulfil.
UBA further alleged that cargoes associated with the transactions were diverted to other parties after their respective voyages rather than delivered to the bank.
