The conflict between Providus Bank and Plural Oil Marketing Limited has escalated as the company’s managing director, Mr. Tunde Oyefolu, was detained by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over an alleged indebtedness of ₦3.17 billion and $835,486.76.
Mr. Oyefolu’s arrest followed a petition by Providus Bank and a subsequent ex-parte court order obtained from the Federal High Court in Lagos, which authorised the freezing of all accounts linked to Plural Oil and its directors across several financial institutions. The order was granted by Justice Akintayo Aluko in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/2015/2025.
However, Plural Oil and its directors have now filed a Motion on Notice seeking to vacate the order, insisting that the EFCC-led detention and the asset-freezing directive were unlawful, unconstitutional, and executed in breach of their right to fair hearing.
Through their counsel, Dr. Sulaiman Usman (SAN), the applicants argued that the freezing order was granted before they were served with any originating processes—an issue highlighted by the order’s own instruction directing Providus Bank to effect substituted service. This, they said, proved that the court acted without jurisdiction and that due process was bypassed.
According to the company, they only learned of the order on October 9, 2025, when multiple banks forwarded compliance notices after their accounts were blocked. They described the move as “a classic violation” of Section 36 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to be heard before punitive judicial measures are imposed.
Plural Oil also accused Providus Bank of obtaining the order through non-disclosure of material facts, stating that the bank failed to disclose that: The company had already paid ₦891,036,000 toward the disputed facility, and tThey had requested reconciliation and restructuring on the very day Providus Bank approached the court.
The applicants further revealed that the bank had earlier petitioned the EFCC, which triggered the MD’s seven-day detention under harsh and dehumanising conditions, despite the matter being a civil commercial dispute. They said the detention also disrupted his ongoing medical treatment for serious cardiac and neurological conditions.
Plural Oil added that the freezing order was excessively broad, extending to every bank account linked to the BVNs of its directors, including accounts belonging to third parties, a situation they described as judicial overreach and a breach of Section 44 of the Constitution prohibiting unlawful deprivation of property.
Responding to insinuations that the company diverted Base Oil financed through Letters of Credit, Plural Oil denied any wrongdoing, insisting that all financed products were sold in the ordinary course of business, with proceeds duly remitted to Providus Bank. They said the bank participated in reconciliation and restructuring meetings between 2021 and 2023, further proving that nothing in the transaction was fraudulent or concealed.
The company warned that the continued freezing of its accounts has crippled day-to-day operations, stalled business obligations, obstructed employee payments, and inflicted irreparable financial damage on its operations.
Plural Oil is therefore urging the court to vacate the ex-parte order ex debito justitiae—as a matter of justice—and restore access to all affected accounts. They are also seeking costs against Providus Bank for what they described as the wrongful use of ex-parte procedures to achieve an unfair commercial advantage.
The case has been adjourned to December 22, 2025, for hearing of the substantive application. Legal analysts say the upcoming ruling may set a defining precedent on the use—and abuse—of ex-parte orders in commercial banking disputes.