Court Dismisses GHL’s Bid To Serve Verdict On Navy, NUPRC, Others In Oil Cargo Dispute With First Bank

In a ruling delivered by Justice E.A. Obile on May 7, 2025, the court rejected GHL’s request to compel the Deputy Chief Registrar of the Federal High Court to serve court orders on parties including First Bank of Nigeria Limited, the Nigerian Navy, the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC), the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), and the Harbour Master of the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA).

The dismissed application was part of ongoing legal proceedings between GHL and First Bank over the controversial arrest and ownership of the crude oil cargo onboard Tamara Tokoni.

Represented by Dr. A. I. Layonu, SAN, and C.E. Owei, GHL had on May 2, 2025, filed a motion ex parte requesting that the court direct the Deputy Chief Registrar to serve its April 29, 2025 judgment and related orders on the aforementioned parties.

The orders, which included a dismissal of First Bank’s application for an injunction pending appeal, were also intended to direct relevant authorities to assist the Admiralty Marshal in executing the order of arrest on the crude cargo.

GHL alleged that the Deputy Chief Registrar had refused to serve the orders, thus frustrating enforcement.

However, Justice Obile, after considering the application, ruled that the motion lacked merit and dismissed it accordingly.

The legal tussle stems from a dispute over the ownership and attempted disposal of a crude oil cargo aboard the FPSO Tamara Tokoni. In a ruling delivered on March 26, 2025, the Federal High Court dismissed First Bank’s suit against GHL, describing it as an abuse of court process and holding that the matter was not a maritime claim but a debt recovery issue.

Despite the ruling, First Bank maintained that the crude cargo remains under arrest and disclosed that it had filed a notice of appeal, along with an application for injunction to prevent GHL from tampering with the oil pending appellate review.

In a public statement, First Bank described the March ruling as a “miscarriage of justice” and vowed to continue pursuing legal remedies to protect its interests and those of its stakeholders.

“While FirstBank holds the judiciary in high regard, we strongly disagree with the ruling, which we believe represents a miscarriage of justice,” the statement read.