The Lagos State High Court in Tapa has granted interim preservative orders including a Mareva injunction against Vitol SA a Switzerland-based energy trading company and four other shipping companies in favour of United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc.
The bank alleged that Vitol wrongfully released cargoes of petroleum products consigned to its order in the bills of lading.
Lead counsel for UBA Bode Olanipekun (SAN) urged it to grant the interim preservative orders against Vitol and the other shipping companies.
Ruling on the application Justice K. A. Jose granted three prayers sought by UBA including requests to restrain the dissipation of assets and dealings with funds up to the disputed amount by Vitol SA.
‘Prayers one to three are granted as prayed against the second 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.
UBA is seeking to establish that Vitol SA 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 SA to facilitate petroleum products transactions.
UBA alleged that the cargoes were 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 it.
UBA maintained that the endorsement entitled it to take possession of the cargoes upon completion of the voyages.
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 arguing 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 alleged they failed to fulfil.
UBA further alleged that cargoes associated with the transactions were diverted to other parties after their voyages instead of being delivered to the bank.