Suppression Of Material Facts: Court Unfreezes Petralon’s 18 Bank Accounts

Justice Daniel Osiagor of a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos on Friday, October 15, 2022, vacated an order it granted, freezing the bank accounts belonging to an oil company, Petralon 54 Limited and its parent company, Petralon Energy Limited. The freeze encompassed their accounts wherever domiciled in 18 banks across the country.

The vacation order was given following the discovery of material facts suppression and deliberate falsehood by Eurafric Energy by the court.

Justice Osiagor in his ruling on a motion filed by the company praying the court to unfreeze the unjustly frozen accounts held that the court was misled to grant an order freezing the company’s accounts and subsequently reversed and lifted the order, unfreezing the bank accounts and cancelling the Post No Debit order that was already in effect across all the restrained banks.

The court in considering Petralon 54’s affidavit in response to Eurafric’s counter-affidavit deposed to on October 12, 2022 and the reply address in support of the motion to set aside the Exparte Orders said it revealed to the court that Eurafric had grossly misinformed it and caused the institution of justice to act in error.

Eurafric Energy had approached the court, praying it to bar operations and transactions on the bank accounts belonging to Petralon 54 its parent company, Petralon Energy, and an unrelated company Tako E&P Solution, on the ground that the three oil companies did not declare the total quantity of crude sold, the amount it was sold and the royalty paid to the government in a Federal Government Agency transaction

However, in a Motion filed by Petralon 54, it prayed the court to lift the order banning operation of its account, arguing that the defendants, particularly Eurafric Energy ‘suppressed and deliberately’ hid material facts concerning the case from the court.

Justice Daniel Osiagor in his consolidated judgment ruled that Exhibit Volte Face F exhibited in the Plaintiff’s Counter Affidavit and Exhibit G exhibited in the Defendant’s Counter clearly indicated that the Plaintiff (Eurafric Energy) gave consent for a loan of $2.2m to be obtained thereby making it a party to the debt repayment efforts to the holding bank which the funds it sought to freeze pertained to, but this fact was not disclosed to the Court before the restraining Order on the Defendant’s accounts.

Justice Daniel Osiagor of a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos on Friday, October 15, 2022, vacated an order it granted, freezing the bank accounts belonging to an oil company, Petralon 54 Limited and its parent company, Petralon Energy Limited. The freeze encompassed their accounts wherever domiciled in 18 banks across the country.

The vacation order was given following the discovery of material facts suppression and deliberate falsehood by Eurafric Energy by the court.

Justice Osiagor in his ruling on a motion filed by the company praying the court to unfreeze the unjustly frozen accounts held that the court was misled to grant an order freezing the company’s accounts and subsequently reversed and lifted the order, unfreezing the bank accounts and cancelling the Post No Debit order that was already in effect across all the restrained banks.

The court in considering Petralon 54’s affidavit in response to Eurafric’s counter-affidavit deposed to on October 12, 2022 and the reply address in support of the motion to set aside the Exparte Orders said it revealed to the court that Eurafric had grossly misinformed it and caused the institution of justice to act in error.

Eurafric Energy had approached the court, praying it to bar operations and transactions on the bank accounts belonging to Petralon 54 its parent company, Petralon Energy, and an unrelated company Tako E&P Solution, on the ground that the three oil companies did not declare the total quantity of crude sold, the amount it was sold and the royalty paid to the government in a Federal Government Agency transaction

However, in a Motion filed by Petralon 54, it prayed the court to lift the order banning operation of its account, arguing that the defendants, particularly Eurafric Energy ‘suppressed and deliberately’ hid material facts concerning the case from the court.

Justice Daniel Osiagor in his consolidated judgment ruled that Exhibit Volte Face F exhibited in the Plaintiff’s Counter Affidavit and Exhibit G exhibited in the Defendant’s Counter clearly indicated that the Plaintiff (Eurafric Energy) gave consent for a loan of $2.2m to be obtained thereby making it a party to the debt repayment efforts to the holding bank which the funds it sought to freeze pertained to, but this fact was not disclosed to the Court before the restraining Order on the Defendant’s accounts.