Justice Akintayo Aluko of the Federal High Court in Lagos has granted an interim order freezing the bank accounts of Plural Oil Marketing Limited and two of its directors over an alleged indebtedness of N3.17 billion and $835,486.76 owed to Providus Bank Limited.
The order, delivered on October 7, 2025, followed an ex parte application filed by Providus Bank through its counsel, Mr. Mitchel Aribisala, seeking to restrain the defendants and several financial institutions from tampering with funds linked to the oil marketing company pending the determination of a substantive motion.
The defendants in the suit, marked FHC/L/CS/2015/2025, are Plural Oil Marketing Limited, Mr. Babatunde Olukunle Oyefolu, and Ms. Oluwatobiloba Ayomide Oyefolu.
In the interim Order, Justice Aluko directed 30 commercial and merchant banks in Nigeria to immediately freeze all accounts belonging to, or associated with, the defendants up to the value of ?3,169,133,292.27 and $835,486.76.
The affected financial institutions include Access Bank, Zenith Bank, Guaranty Trust Bank, United Bank for Africa, First Bank, Stanbic IBTC, Fidelity Bank, Ecobank, and Polaris Bank, among others.
The judge also ordered the banks to place a lien or post-no-debit restriction on any account operated by the defendants, either directly or indirectly, pending the determination of the bank’s motion on notice.
The order extends to accounts linked to the defendants’ Bank Verification Numbers (BVNs) — 22155183546 and 22251673428 — which were used in operating Plural Oil’s accounts.
In addition, the Court listed several digital payment platforms and settlement systems, including the Nigerian Inter-Bank Settlement System (NIBSS), Interswitch Limited, Opay Digital Services, MoMo Payment Service Bank, Unified Payments, Hydrogen Payment Services Company, and Hope Payment Service Bank, directing them not to honour any debit instructions on the affected accounts until further order of the court.
Justice Aluko also mandated all the respondent banks to file an affidavit of return within seven days of service, disclosing all accounts linked to the defendants’ BVNs; the balances in each account; and the transactional history for the past six months.
Furthermore, the judge granted leave to Providus Bank to serve court processes on the 2nd and 3rd defendants — Babatunde and Oluwatobiloba Oyefolu — by substituted means through pasting at their last known address at No. 8A, Lalupon Close, Ikoyi, Lagos.
However, the court declined a similar request regarding the 1st defendant, Plural Oil Marketing Limited, noting that as a corporate entity, it could not be served by such means.
Justice Aluko held that the freezing order would remain in force pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice, and directed Providus Bank to file an undertaking as to damages to indemnify the defendants should it be found that the order was wrongly granted.
The matter was adjourned to October 22, 2025, for hearing of the substantive application.
Providus Bank, in its supporting Affidavit deposed to by Ms. Arith Esin, a Recovery and Remedial Officer, alleged that the defendants were indebted to the bank to the tune of ?3.17 billion and $835,486.76 as of September 24, 2025.
According to the bank, the debt arose from a series of credit facilities granted to Plural Oil Marketing Limited for the importation of Base Oil — a raw material used in lubricant blending — which the company and its directors allegedly failed to repay despite repeated demands.
The Affidavit detailed how the business relationship began in 2018, when the 1st defendant opened a current account with Providus Bank. Subsequent loan facilities were granted through confirmed Letters of Credit and overdraft lines, later restructured several times as time loans between 2021 and 2023 due to persistent default.
Providus Bank stated that despite multiple restructurings and extensions, Plural Oil failed to meet its repayment obligations. The bank further accused the defendants of unlawfully selling financed Base Oil that had been pledged as collateral and diverting the proceeds without remitting them toward their debt obligations.
In January 2024, the bank said its officials discovered that the Base Oil stored at Nosak Tank Farm in Lagos had been secretly sold, contrary to the loan terms that vested ownership of the financed product in the bank until full repayment. The discovery prompted Providus Bank to petition the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for investigation into what it described as “fraudulent diversion and conversion” of the collateral.
Providus Bank also tendered copies of the personal guarantees executed by the 2nd and 3rd defendants, Babatunde and Oluwatobiloba Oyefolu, who had pledged to be personally liable for the company’s debts and provided affidavits of net worth as security for the loans.
The court, satisfied that there was an urgent need to preserve the funds in the defendants’ accounts to prevent dissipation of assets, granted the interim orders pending further proceedings.
Meanwhile, Plural Oil Marketing Limited and its director, Mr. Babatunde Olukunle Oyefolu, have approached the Court in Lagos seeking to set aside the ex parte order obtained by Providus Bank Plc freezing their bank accounts
In a motion on notice filed by their counsel, Dr. Sulaiman Usman (SAN), the Applicants, Plural Oil Marketing Limited and Mr. Babatunde Oyefolu are asking the court to vacate the order made in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/2015/2025, describing it as oppressive, unconstitutional, and obtained in breach of their fundamental rights.
They argued that the order was granted without service of the originating processes and without credible evidence linking the listed BVNs — 22155183546 and 22251673428 — to the alleged indebtedness claimed by Providus Bank.
In a 27-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Mr. Oluwatobiloba Ayomide Oyefolu, a director of the 1st Defendant/Applicant, the company said its operations were suddenly disrupted on October 9, 2025, when several of its accounts and those of its officers were frozen following an ex parte application by the bank.
Oyefolu stated that the company first became aware of the order when it received a forwarding letter dated October 9, 2025, from AOS Practice, counsel to the Plaintiff/Respondent, directing commercial banks to freeze all accounts linked to the BVNs specified in the court order.
He contended that the order was granted before the originating processes were even served, noting that the enrolled order itself granted leave for substituted service — confirming that no valid service had been effected at the time.
The deponent further described the freezing directive as a “blanket order” extending to unrelated accounts of third parties and individuals who were not parties to the suit.
According to him, the order amounted to judicial overreach and violated Sections 36 and 44 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which guarantees the right to fair hearing and protection from unlawful deprivation of property.
Plural Oil and its director also argued that there was no prima facie evidence linking the frozen funds to them or showing any imminent risk of asset dissipation to justify an ex parte injunction.
They alleged that Providus Bank presented no affidavit evidence or documentary proof that the funds in those accounts were proceeds of any transaction involving the bank.
Mr. Oyefolu further alleged that the Respondent mischaracterised a purely civil banking dispute as a criminal matter when it earlier petitioned the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), accusing the Applicants of obtaining money by false pretences.
He said that following the petition, the EFCC detained him for seven days under dehumanising conditions — an action he described as a gross abuse of process designed to embarrass and punish the Applicants before any judicial determination of liability.