A Lagos State High Court last Thursday granted interim preservative orders of Mareva Injunction in favor of United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc against Vitol SA, a Switzerland-based energy trading company, and four other shipping companies.

The Bank alleged that Vitol wrongfully released cargoes of petroleum products that were consigned to the order of UBA in the bills of lading.

Addressing the court, Bode Olanipekun, SAN, lead counsel for UBA, urged the judge to grant the interim preservative orders against Vitol and the other shippers.

In her ruling on the application, the presiding judge, Honourable Justice K. A. Jose, 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 SA.

“Prayers 1–3 are granted as prayed against the 2nd Respondent only,” the judge ruled.

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.

In substantive proceedings, UBA is seeking to contend that Vitol SA and the owners of the vessels are liable for alleged conversion, misrepresentation, and negligence arising from the non-delivery of the petroleum products.

UBA also 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 alleged that the cargo was transported to Nigeria and that the vessels’ masters issued several bills of lading.

The Bank further alleged that Vitol subsequently endorsed the bills of lading to the order of UBA and handed over the original copies. UBA maintained that this endorsement entitled the bank 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 applicant has not been given possession of the gasoil despite completion of the voyage,” the affidavit stated.

UBA 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 were not fulfilled.

UBA also alleged that the associated cargoes were diverted to the use of other parties after their voyages rather than being delivered to the bank.