United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc has secured interim preservative orders from the Lagos State High Court against Switzerland-based energy trading company Vitol SA and four other shipping companies over an alleged $242 million petroleum products diversion dispute.
The orders, granted last Thursday, include measures to restrain the dissipation of assets and dealings with funds up to the disputed amount, pending further proceedings.
In a ruling on UBA’s application, Justice K. A. Jose granted three prayers sought by the bank against Vitol SA.
“Prayers 1–3 are granted as prayed against the 2nd Respondent only,” the judge ruled.
UBA’s lead counsel, Bode Olanipekun, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), had urged the court to grant the interim orders against Vitol and the other shipping companies.
The application was brought under 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 SA and the owners of the vessels involved are liable for alleged conversion, misrepresentation and negligence arising from the non-delivery of petroleum products.
The bank also cited 34 financial institutions and public agencies, including commercial banks, merchant banks, microfinance banks, the Nigerian Ports Authority and the Nigeria Customs Service, in connection with the application.
In an affidavit supporting the application, Anthony Chilaka, UBA’s group head of recoveries and remedial management, said the bank issued a letter of credit in favour of Vitol SA to facilitate petroleum products transactions.
According to the affidavit, the cargoes were transported to Nigeria, with the masters of the vessels issuing several bills of lading.
UBA alleged that Vitol subsequently endorsed the bills of lading “to the order of” the bank and handed over the original documents, which the bank said entitled it to take possession of the cargoes upon completion of the voyages.
However, Chilaka stated that the bank had not received the gasoil despite the completion of the voyage.
“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 diverted for the use of another party, arguing that the failure to deliver the products amounted to conversion and negligence.
The bank further claimed that cargoes linked to the transactions were diverted to other parties after completing their voyages rather than delivered to UBA as stipulated in the shipping documents.
UBA maintains that the parties involved had obligations arising from the transactions and the endorsement of the bills of lading, which it alleges were not fulfilled.