The Lagos State High Court has granted interim preservative orders in favour of United Bank for Africa Plc against Vitol S.A., a Switzerland-based energy trading company, in a dispute arising from the alleged diversion and non-delivery of petroleum products said to have been consigned to the bank.
UBA had approached the court seeking Mareva injunctive reliefs against Vitol and four other shipping companies over cargoes which the bank alleged were released to other parties despite Bills of Lading showing that the petroleum products were consigned “to the order of” UBA.
The bank’s lead counsel, Bode Olanipekun, SAN, urged the court to preserve the assets and funds connected with the disputed transaction pending the determination of the substantive case.
In its ruling, the court, presided over by Justice K. A. Jose, granted three of UBA’s prayers, including orders restraining the dissipation of assets and dealings with funds up to the disputed amount.
The court, however, made clear that the interim orders were granted only against Vitol S.A., identified as the second respondent.
“Prayers 1–3 are granted as prayed against the 2nd Respondent only,” Justice Jose ruled.
The application was brought 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 is seeking to establish that Vitol and the owners of the vessels involved are liable for alleged conversion, misrepresentation and negligence arising from the alleged failure to deliver the petroleum products.
The bank also cited 34 financial institutions and public agencies in connection with the application, including commercial banks, merchant banks, microfinance banks, the Nigerian Ports Authority and the Nigeria Customs Service.
In an affidavit filed in support of the application, UBA’s Group Head of Recoveries and Remedial Management, Anthony Chilaka, stated that the bank issued a letter of credit for the benefit of Vitol S.A. to facilitate petroleum products transactions.
UBA alleged that the petroleum products were subsequently transported to Nigeria and that the masters of the vessels issued several Bills of Lading in respect of the cargoes.
According to the bank, Vitol later endorsed the Bills of Lading “to the order of” UBA and handed the original copies to the bank.
UBA maintained that the endorsement entitled it to take possession of the cargo upon completion of the voyage.
The bank, however, alleged that despite the completion of the voyage, the gasoil was not delivered to it.
“The applicant has not been given possession of the gasoil despite completion of the voyage,” the affidavit stated.
UBA alleged that the cargo was instead applied to the use of another party and contended that the failure to deliver the products amounted to conversion and negligence.
It further argued that obligations arising from the transaction and endorsement of the shipping documents were not fulfilled.
The bank also alleged that cargoes connected with other transactions were similarly diverted to other parties after completion of their voyages rather than delivered to UBA.
Post Title: “The Petroleum Products Were Consigned To The Order Of UBA” — Court Preserves Assets In $242m Claim Against Vitol By Naijaonpoint.