Justice Akintayo Aluko of the Federal High Court in Lagos has issued 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 by Providus Bank, represented by counsel Mitchel Aribisala. The bank asked the court to restrain the defendants and dozens of financial institutions from tampering with funds linked to the oil company pending the hearing of a substantive motion.
The defendants in suit number FHC/L/CS/2015/2025 are Plural Oil Marketing Limited, Mr. Babatunde Olukunle Oyefolu, and Ms. Oluwatobiloba Ayomide Oyefolu.
In the interim ruling, Justice Aluko directed 30 commercial and merchant banks to immediately freeze all accounts belonging to, or associated with, the defendants up to the value of N3,169,133,292.27 and $835,486.76. Affected institutions include Access Bank, Zenith Bank, GTBank, UBA, First Bank, Stanbic IBTC, Fidelity Bank, Ecobank, and Polaris Bank.
The court also ordered the banks to place a lien or post-no-debit restriction on all accounts linked to the defendants’ Bank Verification Numbers — 22155183546 and 22251673428 — pending the determination of the bank’s motion on notice.
Digital payment operators and settlement platforms such as NIBSS, Interswitch, Opay Digital Services, MoMo PSB, Unified Payments, Hydrogen Payment Services Company, and Hope PSB were similarly directed not to honour any debit transactions linked to the affected accounts.
Justice Aluko further mandated all respondent banks to file an affidavit of return within seven days, disclosing all accounts tied to the defendants’ BVNs, the balances contained in each account, and the last six months of transaction history.
He also granted leave to Providus Bank to serve court processes on the second and third defendants by substituted means, through pasting at their last known address at 8A Lalupon Close, Ikoyi. However, the court declined the same request regarding the first defendant, noting that a corporate entity cannot be served through that method.
The judge ruled that the freezing order would remain in effect until the substantive motion is heard, and directed Providus Bank to provide an undertaking in damages in case the order is later found to have been wrongly granted. The matter was adjourned to October 22, 2025.
Providus Bank’s Claims
In a supporting affidavit, Ms. Arith Esin, a Recovery and Remedial Officer at Providus Bank, alleged that the defendants owed N3.17 billion and $835,486.76 as of September 24, 2025. She said the debt stemmed from multiple credit facilities issued for the importation of Base Oil, which the company and its directors failed to repay despite repeated restructurings and extensions.
The bank accused Plural Oil of selling financed Base Oil stored at Nosak Tank Farm without remitting proceeds as required under the loan terms. Providus Bank said this discovery in January 2024 led to a petition to the EFCC alleging “fraudulent diversion and conversion” of collateral.
The affidavit also attached personal guarantees signed by Babatunde and Oluwatobiloba Oyefolu, who pledged to be personally liable for the company’s obligations.
Plural Oil Moves to Vacate the Order
Meanwhile, Plural Oil Marketing Limited and its director, Mr. Babatunde Oyefolu, have asked the Federal High Court to set aside the interim freezing order, describing it as oppressive, unconstitutional, and obtained in violation of their fundamental rights.
In a motion on notice filed by their counsel, Dr. Sulaiman Usman (SAN), the applicants argued that the court granted the order before they were served with originating processes. They also disputed the linkage between the frozen accounts and the BVNs listed in the court order.
In a 27-paragraph affidavit, director Oluwatobiloba Ayomide Oyefolu stated that the company only learned of the order on October 9, 2025, when it received a forwarding letter from AOS Practice, counsel to Providus Bank, instructing commercial banks to freeze all accounts tied to the identified BVNs.
He claimed the order amounted to a “blanket” freeze affecting accounts of third parties not involved in the suit. He argued that such a directive violated Sections 36 and 44 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantee fair hearing and protection from unlawful deprivation of property.
The applicants further argued that Providus Bank failed to provide evidence showing any imminent risk of asset dissipation or proving that the frozen funds were proceeds of transactions related to the bank.
Mr. Oyefolu also alleged that the bank misrepresented the dispute as criminal when it petitioned the EFCC, leading to his detention for seven days under alleged dehumanising conditions — a move he described as an abuse of process.
The defendants are seeking to have the ex parte order vacated ahead of the substantive hearing.
If you would like, I can create a shorter version, a breaking-news version, or a headline summary suitable for social media.
