Plural Oil is reportedly battling Providus Bank in Court and have sought lifting of order freezing company accounts.
NewsOnline Nigeria reports that the legal dispute between Providus Bank Plc and Plural Oil Marketing Limited has escalated, as the oil firm and its directors have asked the Federal High Court in Lagos to overturn an ex-parte order that froze their bank accounts in several financial institutions.
The order, issued by Justice Akintayo Aluko, temporarily froze the company’s accounts and those of two directors over an alleged debt of ₦3.17 billion and $835,486.76 said to be owed to Providus Bank.
ALSO: Court Orders Ex-Power Minister Saleh Mamman to Open Defence in N33.8bn Fraud Trial
In a Motion on Notice filed by their counsel, Dr. Sulaiman Usman (SAN), Plural Oil and directors Babatunde Olukunle Oyefolu and Oluwatobiloba Ayomide Oyefolu argued that the order granted on October 7, 2025 was unlawful, oppressive, and a violation of their constitutional right to fair hearing.
Applicants Say Order Was Granted Without Proper Service
The applicants contend that the court lacked jurisdiction to issue the order because it was granted before they were served with originating court documents. They noted that the order itself instructed Providus Bank to serve them by substituted means, proof that service had not occurred when their accounts were frozen.
Plural Oil said it only discovered the freeze on October 9, 2025, after receiving compliance notifications from banks.
The company described the situation as a “textbook breach” of Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees fair hearing before any adverse judicial action.
Plural Oil Accuses Providus Bank of Withholding Key Facts
The oil firm also accused Providus Bank of failing to make the full disclosures required when seeking an ex-parte order. According to their affidavit, the bank allegedly withheld facts such as:
-
Plural Oil had already paid ₦891,036,000 toward the disputed facility
-
The company had formally requested reconciliation and restructuring on the same day Providus approached the court
The applicants also claimed that Providus Bank previously petitioned the EFCC, resulting in the Managing Director’s seven-day detention, which they described as unlawful, dehumanising, and unnecessary for a civil case.
Company Says Order Was Excessive, Affected Third Parties
Plural Oil further argued that the freeze order was overly broad because it extended to all accounts linked to the BVNs of its directors, including accounts where they were merely signatories and which belonged to third parties unrelated to the dispute.
They said this amounted to judicial overreach and violated Section 44 of the Constitution, which protects against unlawful seizure of property.
The applicants also denied claims that they diverted Base Oil financed under Letters of Credit, insisting that all products were sold legitimately and proceeds remitted to the bank.
Business Operations Crippled — Applicants Tell Court
Plural Oil stated that the prolonged freezing of its accounts has crippled operations, stalled legitimate business transactions, and inflicted “irreparable damage” on staff welfare and contractual obligations.
They are asking the court to lift the order ex debito justitiae as a matter of justice and restore immediate access to all affected accounts.
They also seek declarations that the order was improperly obtained and a request for costs against Providus Bank for alleged abuse of ex-parte procedures.
Case Adjourned to December 22, 2025
The matter has been adjourned to December 22, 2025 for hearing. Legal observers say the ruling will be significant in defining the limits of ex-parte orders in commercial banking disputes.
