The Supreme Court has halted debt recovery proceedings involving Nestoil Limited, Neconde Energy Limited, and oil tycoons Ernest Azudialu-Obiejesi and Nnenna Obiejesi, ordering all parties to return to the Court of Appeal over a dispute on legal representation.
In a ruling delivered on Monday, a five-member panel of the apex court, led by Justice Inyang Okoro, directed the Court of Appeal to first determine which lawyers are properly authorised to represent the parties before the matter can proceed further. The appeal court is to report back to the Supreme Court on 26 January 2026.
The ruling effectively stalls the high-profile debt recovery case, which has drawn attention for both the size of the liabilities involved and the array of senior advocates appearing on all sides.
During proceedings, the Supreme Court openly criticised what it described as unnecessary procedural manoeuvres in commercial debt cases. Justice Okoro warned that debtors should focus on settling obligations rather than prolonging disputes through technical applications and serial appeals.
Read Also: EFCC boss says probe of AGF Malami predates his appointment
At the centre of Monday’s hearing was a disagreement over who validly represents the companies and their promoters.
For Neconde Energy, Wole Olanipekun, SAN, announced appearance, but his authority was challenged by Ayo Olorunfemi, SAN, who led Ame Ogie.
Similarly, Muiz Banire, SAN, appeared for Nestoil, a move contested by Ayoola Ajayi, SAN, who led M.B. Ganiyu.
Chinonye Obiagwu, SAN, appeared for Ernest Azudialu-Obiejesi, while Kehinde Ogunwumiju, SAN, led a team including Ademola Abimbola, SAN, and Chikasolu Ojukwu, SAN, for Nnenna Obiejesi.
Also present was Abubakar Sulu-Gambari, SAN, the court-appointed Receiver/Manager, whose role is central to enforcing the disputed debt.
The creditor institutions — FBNQuest Merchant Bank Limited and First Trustees — were represented by Babajide Koku, SAN, Victor Ogude, SAN, and Omosanya Popoola, SAN, alongside a team of junior counsel.
Legal observers say the Supreme Court’s decision sends a clear message that it will not entertain technical delays in high-value commercial disputes and expects lower courts to resolve foundational issues swiftly before matters reach the apex court.
Until the Court of Appeal settles the representation dispute, the debt recovery battle remains on hold.