A Lagos Federal High Court yesterday fixed March 9, 2021 to rule on three applications relating to its interim order directing 20 commercial banks to block Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) of Nigeria Ltd accounts for alleged crude oil diversion.
Justice Oluremi Oguntoyinbo fixed the date after hearing arguments from Kemi Pinheiro (SAN) and Emeka Ozoani (SAN) for Aiteo Eastern E & P Company Ltd, Adewale Atake (SAN) for SPDC, Olawale Akoni (SAN) for the banks and Chukwuka Ikwuazom (SAN), for four Shell subsidiaries.
AITEO Eastern E & P Company Ltd is the plaintiff/applicants in the suit marked FHC/L/CS/52/202 and SPDC Ltd is the first defendant.
Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Shell Western Supply and Trading Ltd, Shell International Trading and Shipping Company Ltd and Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company Ltd are second, third, fourth and fifth defendants.
Justice Oguntoyinbo had, on January 25, 2021, directed the banks to “ring-fence any cash, bonds, deposits, all forms of negotiable instruments to the value of $2.7 billion and pay all standing credits to the Shell companies up to the value into an interest yielding account in the name of the Chief Registrar of the court.”
The order followed an application by AITEO Eastern E & P, in its bid to recover the cash value of its “more than 16 million barrels of crude oil” allegedly diverted by Shell.
The defendants subsequently filed an application seeking to discharge the order while Aiteo initiated committal proceedings against two banks and their officials for allegedly “interfering, obstructing and/or frustrating compliance with the interim Mareva orders.
Last Thursday, the judge adjourned to consider whether to first entertain a motion challenging its jurisdiction or to consider contempt proceedings.
At the resumed hearing of the matter on Tuesday, the court considered three applications relating to its jurisdiction, motion to discharge its ex-parte order and the committal proceedings.
Canvassing for the committal application, Pinheiro reasoned that it was “necessary that the named persons in committal proceedings (the bank officials) be present in court” because the proceedings “attached to their person”.