Justice Akintayo Aluko of a Federal High Court, Lagos, has proclaimed 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, Given on October 7, 2025, followed an ex parte application by Providus Bank through its counsel, Mr. Mitchel Aribisala.
The bank had Requested the court to safe funds linked to the defendants pending the determination of a substantive motion.
Enumerated as defendants in the suit marked FHC/L/CS/2015/2025 are Plural Oil Marketing Limited, Mr. Babatunde Oyefolu, and Ms. Oluwatobiloba Oyefolu.
However, Plural Oil Marketing Limited and its director, Oyefolu, have filed a motion seeking to set aside the freezing order.
Their application, filed through Dr. Sulaiman Usman, SAN, described the order as oppressive, unconstitutional, and made in breach of their rights.
Justice Aluko had directed 30 commercial and merchant banks to freeze all accounts belonging to, or associated with, the defendants up to the value of the alleged debt.
The court also ordered the banks to place a lien or post-no-debit restriction on any accounts operated by the defendants, whether directly or indirectly, pending the hearing of the bank’s motion on notice.
Digital payment platforms and settlement systems, including NIBSS, Interswitch, Opay, MoMo PSB, Unified Payments, Hydrogen Payments, and Hope PSB, were equally restrained from honouring any debit instructions on the accounts until further notice.
Justice Aluko further directed all respondent banks to file an affidavit of return within seven days, disclosing all accounts linked to the BVNs, their balances, and six-month transaction histories.
The court granted leave to Providus Bank to serve court processes on Babatunde and Oyefolu by substituted means via pasting at their last known address in Ikoyi, Lagos.
A similar request regarding Plural Oil Marketing Limited was refused on the grounds that a corporate entity cannot be served in that manner.
According to an affidavit Removed to by Ms. Arith Esin, a Recovery and Remedial Officer at Providus Bank, the defendants’ indebtedness arose from credit facilities granted to Plural Oil for the importation of Base Oil used in lubricant production. The bank alleged persistent default despite several restructurings between 2021 and 2023.
Meanwhile, asking the court to vacate the order, the defendants argued that the order was granted before the originating processes were served, pointing out that the same order granted leave for substituted service an indication that valid service had not been effected.
In a 27-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Mr. Oyefolu, the applicants said they became aware of the order on October 9, 2025, when their banks notified them of instructions received from the plaintiff’s counsel.
The candidate described the order as a “blanket” directive freezing accounts of third parties not involved in the suit, alleging that it amounted to judicial overreach and violated their rights under Sections 36 and 44 of the 1999 Constitution.
They contended that Providus Bank failed to provide credible evidence linking the frozen funds to the alleged debt or showing risk of asset Loss.
