A Lagos State High Court has reportedly granted interim Mareva injunctions in favour of United Bank for Africa Plc (UBA) against Swiss-based energy trading company Vitol SA and four other shipping companies over a disputed $242 million petroleum products transaction.....KINDLY READ THE FULL STORY HERE▶
reports that UBA accused Vitol of wrongfully releasing petroleum cargoes that were consigned to the bank’s order in the relevant bills of lading.
During proceedings, UBA’s lead counsel, Bode Olanipekun, SAN, urged the court to grant interim preservative orders against Vitol and the other shipping companies.
In its ruling, the presiding judge, Justice K. A. Jose, granted three prayers contained in UBA’s application, including requests to prevent the dissipation of assets and restrict dealings with funds up to the disputed amount. However, the judge specified that the orders applied only to the second respondent.
“Prayers 1–3 are granted as prayed against the 2nd Respondent only,” the judge ruled.
The application was filed 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 intends to argue that Vitol SA and the owners of the vessels involved are liable for alleged conversion, misrepresentation and negligence arising from the failure to deliver the petroleum products.
The bank also listed 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, explained that the bank had issued a letter of credit in favour of Vitol SA to facilitate a petroleum products transaction.
According to the affidavit, the cargo was transported to Nigeria, after which the vessels’ masters issued several bills of lading.
UBA alleged that Vitol subsequently endorsed the bills of lading in the bank’s favour and handed over the original documents to it.
The bank maintained that the endorsement entitled it to take possession of the cargo once the voyage had been completed.
However, Chilaka stated that UBA had yet to receive 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 further alleged that the cargo was instead diverted for the use of another party, arguing that the failure to deliver the products amounted to conversion and negligence.
The bank maintained that the respondents had obligations arising from the transaction and the endorsement of the shipping documents, which it alleged they failed to fulfil.