The legal fireworks between a foremost commercial bank in Nigeria, Stanbic IBTC, and a oil company, ASCON, may not be ending soon as the former has alleged gross misinterpretation of court order and alleged illegality in its ‘repossession’ of property by the former.
In a statement from the bank and made available to Freelanews, the bank claimed Ascon action was a gross violation of court action.
“The attention of Stanbic IBTC Bank has been drawn to a publication by various online media, which purports to indicate that Ascon Oil Limited (“Ascon”) ‘retook possession’ of a property along Lekki Admiralty Way, pursuant to an alleged Court Order issued in their favour.
“This is certainly a gross misrepresentation by Ascon, as no court order was granted to Ascon to warrant their extra-judicial action, which they undertook in forcefully seizing a petrol station validly belonging to a third party, in total defiance and disregard of Ruling of Justice Liman of the Federal High Court on 24 July 2020,” the bank said.
Recall that pursuant to a suit marked FHC/L/CS/567/2020 and ruling by Justice Mohammed Liman of the Federal High Court, Lagos, which arose following a N1.7bn loan facility for a property allegedly sold by Stanbic IBTC.
It was gathered that the property with a market value of N2.5bn was undersold at N1.53bn through Stanbic IBTC’s receiver to one of its customers, Rainoil Ltd.
Rainoil is one of Ascon’s competitors in the downstream sector and in 2019 while Stanbic IBTC was its banker, made a bid to acquire controlling shares in Ascon Oil.
The property had been in the receiver’s possession following a May 15, 2020 ex-parte ruling by the same court authorising the takeover of the property and restrain Ascon from interfering with the receiver’s discharge of his functions.
But on July 24, 2020, the bank alleged that Ascon misinterpreted Justice Liman’s ruling as vacating that order after it alleged non-disclosure and material misrepresentation of facts against Stanbic IBTC.
The bank, however, while making clarifications, stated that the Federal High Court had clearly refused to grant Ascon’s application to set aside the order earlier granted to the receiver appointed by the bank to take possession of the filling station .
“In total contempt of the ruling by the Federal High Court, the directors of Ascon resorted to self-help, and forcefully seized the property from the valid title holder,” the statement from the bank claimed.
“The bank is taking all lawful steps to ensure that the illegal and unlawful ‘possession’ is reversed and the directors of Ascon are brought to book,” it concluded.
Freelanews is the editorial byline of Freelanews.com, used for staff reports, news updates, press releases, and collaborative stories produced by the Freelanews Editorial Team.
