The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has dismissed an application by Petrocam Trading Nigeria Limited and other defendants seeking to vary an order requiring them to provide a bank guarantee or bond as security for a disputed N9.05 billion claim.
Justice Akintayo Aluko, who presided over the matter, ruled that the application filed on July 15, 2026, amounted to an abuse of court process because it sought to indirectly discharge or overturn an earlier ruling already delivered after both parties had been heard.
The dispute arose after the claimant sought to preserve funds allegedly owed by Petrocam and the other defendants pending the determination of the substantive case.
On March 30, 2026, the court granted an interim injunction restricting dealings with the defendants’ bank accounts to the extent of the claimant’s alleged N9,057,511,855.63 claim.
The defendants subsequently challenged the order.
In a ruling delivered on May 4, 2026, Justice Aluko declined to discharge the injunction but modified the arrangement, allowing the defendants to secure the disputed claim through a bond or guarantee from a reputable bank.
The court directed the defendants to provide a bond or guarantee of N9,511,185,353.53, while also requiring the claimant to provide an undertaking as to damages.
Dissatisfied with the conditions, the defendants filed a fresh application seeking an extension of time to comply with the May 4 order and asking the court to replace the bank guarantee or bond requirement with another form of undertaking.
The application was heard on August 27, 2026, after lawyers representing the parties adopted their respective written addresses.
In dismissing the application, Justice Aluko rejected the defendants’ reliance on Order 26 Rule 9(1) and (2) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019.
The judge held that the provision applied to orders made following an ex parte application, whereas the May 4 ruling was delivered after the defendants had challenged the initial injunction and both sides had been heard.
Justice Aluko noted that although the March 30 injunction was initially granted ex parte, the subsequent hearing had changed its character into an inter partes order.
The court held that its May 4 ruling had already exercised its discretion by modifying the initial injunction and providing the defendants with an alternative means of protecting their interests through a bank guarantee or bond.
According to the judge, the latest application was effectively an attempt to obtain the same relief that had already been considered and determined by the court.
The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that their counterclaim provided grounds for discharging or varying the injunction.
Justice Aluko held that the existence of a counterclaim did not automatically extinguish the claimant’s right to seek preservation of its alleged claim pending the determination of the substantive proceedings.
The judge explained that an interlocutory injunction is intended to preserve the subject matter of litigation and prevent a potential judgment from being rendered ineffective.
The court further maintained that the undertaking as to damages already imposed on the claimant was designed to protect the defendants against any compensable loss arising from the injunction if it was ultimately found to have been wrongly granted.
Justice Aluko also ruled that the defendants could not use the application to effectively appeal the court’s own decision.
The judge stressed that a court of coordinate jurisdiction ordinarily cannot sit on appeal over its own decision and that the appropriate avenue for challenging such a ruling is an appellate court, except in recognised circumstances such as a lack of jurisdiction.
The court noted that the defendants had already appealed the May 4 ruling to the Court of Appeal.
Justice Aluko therefore held that they could not simultaneously invite the trial court to reconsider the same decision through a fresh application for variation.
The judge ruled that the July 15 application was incompetent and constituted an abuse of court process.
The application was consequently dismissed.
Comments