A Federal High Court in Lagos has struck down a receivership application filed by the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON), ruling that the agency and its legal team deliberately concealed material facts to secure court orders against General Hydrocarbons Limited.
Justice A. Aluko delivered the decisive ruling on December 12, finding that AMCON’s actions amounted to an abuse of judicial process and were undertaken in defiance of existing court directives.
The decision represents a significant defeat for AMCON in its attempt to recover a $718 million non-performing loan. The debt recovery agency had acquired the obligation from First Bank of Nigeria as part of its statutory mandate to purchase troubled assets from financial institutions.
The legal controversy centers on a substantial debt originally owed by Atlantic Energy Drilling Concept Nigeria Limited to First Bank, which AMCON subsequently purchased. This triggered an intense legal confrontation between AMCON and General Hydrocarbons Limited, along with its chairman, Mr. Nduka Obaigbena.
Justice Aluko upheld a preliminary objection raised by Obaigbena, which challenged the court’s authority to hear the case initiated by AMCON’s designated receiver, Mr. Seyi Akinwunmi.
Court Finds Deliberate Suppression of Facts
The court determined that Akinwunmi and his legal representative, Senior Advocate Bidemi Ademola-Bello, “deliberately suppressed facts in commencing this suit and securing the interim orders against General Hydrocarbons Limited and its assets.”
Justice Aluko emphasized that disclosure of previous court orders would have prevented the granting of interim measures on October 24, 2025.
Timeline of Legal Violations
The legal complications began on September 23, 2025, when Justice A. Lewis-Allagoa issued ex-parte orders prohibiting AMCON and its representatives from taking enforcement action against General Hydrocarbons or its assets.
The injunction specifically barred any steps to enforce rights against the company, including account freezes, receivership appointments, or deployment of recovery agents.
However, AMCON had already appointed Akinwunmi as receiver on September 18, 2025—five days before the formal injunction.
On October 22, 2025, Justice Lewis-Allagoa reinforced that the September 23 orders would continue in force until formally set aside. Ademola-Bello, representing AMCON and the receiver, gave a personal undertaking to comply with the court’s decision.
Despite this commitment, Ademola-Bello filed a new suit the following day—October 23, 2025—in the names of General Hydrocarbons Limited (identified as being in receivership) and Akinwunmi against Obaigbena and two other parties.
Additional Violations and Conflicts of Interest
In a separate ruling on December 8, 2025, Justice Lewis-Allagoa addressed the appearance of Senior Advocate Oluseye Opasanya at court proceedings on November 26, 2025. The judge determined this action violated valid court orders from September 23 and October 22.
The court also identified a conflict of interest, noting that Opasanya had previously represented AMCON at a settlement meeting held at the agency’s offices on July 14, 2025.
Justice Lewis-Allagoa ruled that the appointment of Opasanya and another Senior Advocate, Kayode Adeluol, as counsel for General Hydrocarbons by the purported receiver on November 14, 2025, was “inappropriate and offends the Law.”
The court affirmed that Layonu, who had been formally engaged by Obaigbena on September 17, 2025, remained the company’s legitimate legal representative.
Justice Aluko’s Final Determination
In dismissing the receivership suit, Justice Aluko concluded that it constituted “an abuse of court process because of the prior existence of Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1903/2025 – General Hydrocarbons Limited v. AMCON & 3 ors.”
The judge noted that Akinwunmi, as AMCON’s appointee, functioned as the agency’s agent and was therefore bound by Justice Lewis-Allagoa’s orders against AMCON.
After examining both cases, Justice Aluko “found them to be the same or very similar” and saw no justification for initiating new proceedings when an existing case could address all matters in dispute.
The court observed that the conduct of Akinwunmi and Ademola-Bello “was capable of impugning the credibility of the judicial process and was a clear waste of the Court’s time and resources which should be frowned upon.”
Consequently, Justice Aluko dismissed the suit and vacated the interim orders of October 24, 2025, which had temporarily validated the receivership over General Hydrocarbons.
The ruling underscores the judiciary’s intolerance for procedural violations and fact suppression in legal proceedings, particularly when involving powerful government agencies pursuing debt recovery.
