Wale Igbintade
The Lagos State High Court has granted interim preservative orders of Mareva injunction in favour of United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc towards Vitol SA, a Switzerland-based vitality buying and selling firm, and 4 different delivery corporations over a petroleum merchandise diversion dispute involving $242 million.
UBA alleged that Vitol wrongfully launched cargoes of petroleum merchandise consigned to the financial institution’s order underneath the related payments of lading.
Addressing the courtroom, Bode Olanipekun, SAN, lead counsel to UBA, urged the choose to grant the interim preservative orders towards Vitol and the opposite delivery corporations.
In her ruling, Justice Okay. A. Jose granted three prayers in UBA’s software, together with requests to restrain the dissipation of belongings and dealings in funds as much as the disputed quantity by Vitol SA.
“Prayers 1-3 are granted as prayed against the second respondent only,” the choose dominated.
The software was introduced pursuant to Order 43, Rule 1 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019 and Lagos State High Court Practice Direction No. 2 of 2019.
In the substantive proceedings, UBA intends to contend that Vitol SA and the homeowners of the vessels are chargeable for alleged conversion, misrepresentation, and negligence arising from the non-delivery of the petroleum merchandise.
The financial institution additionally cited 34 monetary establishments and public businesses, together with industrial banks, service provider banks, microfinance banks, Nigerian Ports Authority, and Nigeria Customs Service, in reference to the applying.
In an affidavit supporting the applying, UBA’s Group Head of Recoveries and Remedial Management, Anthony Chilaka, said that the financial institution had issued a letter of credit score in favour of Vitol SA to facilitate a petroleum merchandise transaction.
According to the affidavit, the cargo was transported to Nigeria, the place the masters of the vessels issued a number of payments of lading.
UBA additional alleged that Vitol subsequently endorsed the payments of lading in favour of the financial institution and handed over the unique copies to it.
The financial institution maintained that the endorsement entitled it to take possession of the cargo upon completion of the voyage.
However, Chilaka said that UBA had not acquired the gasoil, regardless of the completion of the voyage.
“The applicant has not been given possession of the gasoil despite completion of the voyage,” the affidavit said.
UBA alleged that the cargo was, as an alternative, diverted for the good thing about one other occasion, arguing that the failure to ship the petroleum merchandise quantity to conversion and negligence.
The financial institution additional contended that the respondents had obligations arising from the transaction and the endorsement of the delivery paperwork, however did not fulfil them.
It alleged that cargoes related to the transactions had been diverted to different events after the completion of their voyages quite than being delivered to UBA.
