A High Court of Lagos State has granted interim preservative orders of Mareva Injunction against Vitol SA – a Switzerland based Energy Trading company, and four other shipping companies in favour of United Bank for Africa Plc.
The bank accused Vitol of wrongful release of cargoes of petroleum products which were consigned to the order of United Bank for Africa Plc in the Bills of Lading.
The lead Counsel to the United Bank for Africa, Bode Olanipekun, SAN, had while addressing the Court, urged it to grant the interim preservative orders against Vitol and the other shippers.
Accordingly, the court presided over by Justice K. A. Jose in her ruling on the application, granted three prayers in UBA’s application, including requests to restrain the dissipation of assets and dealings with funds up to the disputed amount by Vitol S.A.
The court granted prayers 1–3 as prayed against the 2nd Respondent only.
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.
UBA sought to contend in the substantive proceedings that Vitol SA and the owners of the vessels, were liable for alleged conversion, misrepresentation and negligence arising from the non-delivery of the petroleum products.
The bank through its counsel 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, 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 SA to facilitate a petroleum products transaction.
UBA further alleged that the cargo was transported to Nigeria and that the vessels’ masters issued several bills of lading and also alleged that Vitol subsequently endorsed the bills of lading “to the order of” UBA and handed over the original copies to it.
The bank maintained that the endorsement entitled it to take possession of the cargo upon completion of the voyage.
However, Chilaka stated that the bank had not received the gasoil despite the completion of the voyage.
The affidavit further stated; “The applicant has not been given possession of the gasoil despite completion of the voyage”.
UBA also alleged that the cargo was instead, applied to the use of another party, contending that the respondents’ failure to deliver it amounted to conversion and negligence.
The bank argued that the respondents had obligations arising from the transaction and the endorsement of the shipping documents, which it claimed were not fulfilled.
It further alleged that the cargoes associated with those transactions were also diverted to the use of other parties after their voyages, rather than delivered to UBA.
