Justice Dehinde Dipeolu sitting at the Federal High Court sitting in Ikoyi, Lagos, on Wednesday ordered the appearance of 16 alleged contemnors, including top officials of Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc, over alleged disobedience of court orders in a high-stakes banking dispute involving Guaranty Trust Bank Plc.
The order was made by Justice Dipeolu during proceedings in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/1738/2024, filed by Guaranty Trust Bank Plc against GY Farmers Ltd and other defendants.
At the resumed hearing on April 1, 2026, counsel to the plaintiff, A.B. Ogunba, SAN, informed the court of a pending motion for contempt dated March 27, 2026.
He urged the court to compel the alleged contemnors to appear and show cause why they should not be committed to prison for alleged willful disobedience of subsisting court orders.
Ogunba told the court that all relevant parties had been duly served with the contempt processes, including Forms 48 and 49, which are statutory notices in committal proceedings.
The contempt application targets Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc and several of its senior officers, including Mr. Yinka Sanni, Mr. Wole Adeniyi, Mrs. Olubunmi Dayo-Olagunju, Mrs. Olufunke Amobi, Mr. Olu Delano, Mr. Eric Fajemisin, Mr. Kola Lawal, Mr. Remy Osuagwu, Mr. Abubakar Sadiq Bello, Mr. Helmut Engelbrecht, Ms. Rabi Isma, Mrs. Funeka Montjane, Mr. Simon Ridley, Mrs. Remilekun Soyannwo, and Mr. Justus Ineanacho.
According to court filings, the dispute stems from preservative orders granted by the court on October 25, 2024, restraining the defendants from dissipating funds totaling N806,393,894.38.
The court also directed financial institutions to disclose any funds held on behalf of the defendants.
However, the plaintiff alleges that Stanbic IBTC Bank, despite being duly notified of the order, filed an affidavit on November 8, 2024, claiming that only the 5th defendant maintained an account with the bank and that the account was unfunded.
Contrary to this claim, the plaintiff contends that the bank had earlier acknowledged placing a lien on the account on November 4, 2024, and that the account contained the sum of R8,736,661.91 at the material time—facts allegedly suppressed in the affidavit presented before the court.
Based on these alleged contradictions, the court had, on February 24, 2026, ordered the attachment of the said funds.
During Wednesday’s proceedings, counsel to Stanbic IBTC Bank, J.C. Iheanacho, told the court that the bank had already filed counter-affidavits in response to both Forms 48 and 49.
He maintained that the affidavits were intended to demonstrate that no such funds as claimed by the plaintiff existed in the account of the 5th defendant.
Iheanacho further argued that the correspondence relied upon by the plaintiff was a routine communication typically issued by banks to customers and did not imply the existence of funds in the account. He added that a bank official present in court could provide further clarification on the content of the letter.
Justice Dipeolu, however, observed that the contents of the letter were clear and unambiguous, noting that no alternative interpretation could be reasonably inferred from it.
Counsel to the 2nd defendant, Adeyinka Olumide Fusika, SAN, raised concerns over procedural fairness, urging the court to direct that all processes filed by Stanbic IBTC Bank be served on the defendants.
He expressed surprise at what he described as a growing trend of banks deposing to false affidavits on oath.
Fusika also informed the court of a pending application for stay of proceedings but stated that he would not pursue it for now in the interest of justice, to allow the contempt proceedings to progress.
In response, Iheanacho reiterated his request for an adjournment, noting that the bank was in the process of filing further counter-affidavits to properly address the issues raised in the motion.
After hearing the submissions of counsel, Justice Dipeolu adjourned the matter to April 20, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. and ordered that all 16 alleged contemnors appear in court on that date to show cause why they should not be committed to prison.
The plaintiff, in its motion, is also seeking an order lifting the corporate veil of Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc to hold its principal officers personally liable for the alleged contempt.
It further prayed the court to commit the named individuals to a correctional facility until they purged themselves of the alleged contempt and restored the authority of the court.
Comments