$85.8m Debt: More Troubles for Seplat, As Court Strikes Out Another Application
Seplat Petroleum’s legal tussle with Access Bank has suffered a setback.

A Lagos Federal High Court, today, struck out an application filed by the oil company, Seplat Petroleum Development Company, seeking to varied an order of mareva injunction freezing its account and sealing its offices.
In striking out the application, Justice Rilwan Aikawa, who presided over the court, virtually, said the plaintiff, Access Bank Plc, through its counsel, Mr. Kunle Ogunba (SAN), has sufficiently presented to court, that its has an action against the oil company.
And that the order which was sought and granted, was to preserve res from been disposed off before the hearing and determination of the suit’s motion on notice.
Justice Aikawa had on November 23, 2020, made an order of mareva injunction against the oil company over alleged $85.5m debt, following an application filed and moved by the Access Bank Plc’s lawyer, Ogunba (SAN).
Don’t miss: FirstBank Intensifies Face Mask Awareness With New Exciting Campaign
Seplat, Cardinal Drilling Services Ltd, Mr. Orjiako Ambrosie Bryant and Kalu Nwosu are the defendants/applicants in the suit marked FHC/L/CS/588/2020.
Don’t miss: Why Seplat Petroleum Threatens to Drag Access Bank to Court
The assets affected by the mareva order include; 25, Lugard Avenue, Ikoyi, Lagos, 6, Agodogba Avenue, Parkview, Ikoyi, Lagos and the one at 11, Oba Adeyinika Oyekan Street, Ikoyi, Lagos.
Counsel that virtually attended today’s proceeding are: Divine Obinna for the plaintiff, Mr. Etiqwe Uwa (SAN) for Seplat, Olayinka Olajuwon for Cardinal Drilling Services, Femi Adenitire for Mr. Orjiako Ambrosie Bryant and Kalu Nwosu, while O. Umemuo for interested party.
Hearing of Access Bank’s motion on notice has been fixed for January 26, 2021.
Seplat Petroleum seals Crude Purchase Agreement with Waltersmith Petroman Oil Limited
Seplat upon being served with the order, had filed an application dated December 3, 2020 seeking to discharge the orders. The other defendants did same.
While still awaiting the court’s decision on the applications, the oil company filed another application dated December 12, seeking the same reliefs, which was lifting or varying of the order.
