Legal Showdown: Abuja Court Fixes Jan 22, 2026, Ruling in Nestoil vs. 8 Nigerian Banks

​The high-stakes legal battle between prominent oil and gas firm, Nestoil Limited, and a consortium of Nigerian and international lenders, including eight Nigerian banks and the African Export-Import Bank (Afreximbank), reached a crucial juncture in Abuja. The Federal High Court, presided over by Justice Mohammed Umar, has fixed January 22, 2026, for a ruling on Nestoil’s application for an interlocutory injunction and a report on the complex receivership proceedings initiated against the oil company.

​The Core of the Dispute: Debt and Receivership

​The legal conflict revolves around an alleged massive debt—reportedly involving an outstanding $1.01 billion and N430 billion—that Nestoil and its affiliates purportedly owe the financial institutions under a Common Terms Agreement (CTA) executed in September 2022. The crisis deepened after the banks, relying on a Notice of Default dated May 30, 2025, initiated receivership proceedings to take over the company's assets due to the alleged indebtedness.

​Nestoil’s Position (The Plaintiff):

​Nestoil, through its lead counsel, argued that the banks were allegedly making "wrongful demands and threats," insisting that the company had "substantially performed its obligations" under the CTA, having repaid hundreds of millions of dollars. The company’s core motion sought:

​An order restraining the banks from enforcing or further enforcing the Notice of Default.

​An order restraining the banks from publishing in any public medium or credit bureau that Nestoil is indebted to them.

​The release of Nestoil’s account statements, which the company claims the banks have unlawfully refused to provide, despite relying on "opaque computed figures" to issue debt recovery threats.

​The company’s counsel argued that the alleged refusal to release bank statements, while simultaneously claiming a massive debt escalation (from $122 million in May 2025 to over $1 billion months later), was unlawful and oppressive.

​The Banks' Defense: Competency and Prior Litigation

​The counsel representing the banks argued vehemently against Nestoil’s application, raising two primary challenges against the suit's validity:

​Incompetency and Abuse of Process: The banks contended that the Abuja suit was an "abuse of court process" and incompetent because the same parties and subject matter were already being litigated before the Federal High Court in Lagos. They claimed Nestoil was attempting to relitigate issues already pending.

​Lack of Legal Standing (Locus Standi): Crucially, the banks argued that Nestoil, which is currently under receivership, lacks the legal standing to initiate the suit without the express consent or approval of the legally appointed receiver/manager.

​Furthermore, the banks’ counsel cited a recent interim injunction granted by the Court of Appeal, Lagos, which restrained Nestoil and others from interrupting the duties of the receiver/manager, arguing that the Abuja court should not embark on a "collision course" with the appellate court.

​The Road to January 2026

​The proceedings highlighted the complexity of the ongoing legal tussle, which has seen dramatic events, including the brief sealing of Nestoil’s headquarters in Lagos by armed police following a prior court order freezing the company’s assets. While one Lagos court judge initially reversed that freezing order, the Court of Appeal’s subsequent interim injunction has upheld the status of the receiver/manager.

​Justice Umar’s decision to fix January 22, 2026, for the ruling is a pivotal step. The judgment will determine whether Nestoil can secure a temporary injunction to halt the debt enforcement and receivership proceedings, potentially preserving its operations, or if the court will uphold the banks' argument that the case is incompetent and that the status quo of receivership should be maintained. The outcome is expected to have significant implications for the Nigerian oil and gas sector and the stability of bank-client relationships in major corporate lending.