The legal dispute between Petrocam Trading Nigeria Ltd and Zenith Bank Limited has intensified, with the Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos, fixing April 30, 2026, to rule on an application seeking to vacate an order freezing the company’s bank accounts over an alleged N9.05 billion debt.
Presiding over the matter, Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke had earlier granted an interim freezing order following an ex parte application by the bank in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/393/2026. The order was intended to preserve funds allegedly owed by Petrocam and its principal, Patrick Ilo, as of May 31, 2025.
At Thursday’s proceedings, counsel to Petrocam, Gboyega Oyewole (SAN), urged the court to discharge the injunction granted on March 3, 2026, arguing that it was obtained through suppression of material facts and has since crippled the company’s operations.
He maintained that Petrocam remains a viable enterprise with nationwide operations, stressing that the account freeze has inflicted severe financial hardship without any evidence of risk of asset dissipation.
In an affidavit deposed to by the firm’s Head of Trade, Sunmola Omolara, the company denied owing the bank, insisting that all obligations under a 2014 import finance facility had been fully settled. According to Petrocam, over N7.4 billion in petroleum sales proceeds were remitted directly to the bank, with supporting documentation including bank statements and domiciliation records involving industry players such as Total Nigeria Plc and Oando Plc.
The company explained that the facility was structured for repayment through petroleum sales and Sovereign Debt Notes issued under the Federal Government’s fuel subsidy regime, noting that any financing gaps were due to delays in government payments, which were eventually cleared between 2019 and 2020.
Petrocam further argued that interest on the facility was cancelled, with payments routed through the Debt Management Office, and accused the bank of ignoring a directive by the Central Bank of Nigeria mandating a 100 per cent interest waiver on subsidy-related debts.
Read Also:
According to the defendants, while other financial institutions complied with the directive, Zenith Bank allegedly continued to impose interest charges up to 2023 and 2024, despite regulatory interventions.
A key element of Petrocam’s defence is a Letter of Non-Indebtedness dated December 16, 2024, which it claims was issued by the bank, affirming that its account was in credit, save for a contingent liability linked to a bank guarantee. The company argued that the bank’s subsequent N9 billion claim contradicts this position and undermines the basis for the freezing order.
Petrocam also challenged the procedure leading to the suit, alleging that no valid demand notice was issued prior to the action and describing a purported June 2025 demand letter as an afterthought sent to the wrong address.
In addition, the firm accused the bank of negligence in handling the transaction, including failure to secure foreign exchange for letters of credit and continued imposition of charges despite regulatory directives.
Separately, Ilo is seeking to be struck out of the suit, contending that he neither guaranteed the facility nor assumed personal liability, insisting he acted solely as an agent of the company. He also denied allegations of fraud or diversion of funds.
In their written address, the defendants argued that the bank failed to meet the legal threshold for the grant of an interlocutory injunction, maintaining that no substantial issue exists for trial in view of the alleged letter confirming non-indebtedness.
They further submitted that the balance of convenience favours Petrocam, which faces operational paralysis under the freeze, while the bank could be compensated in damages if it succeeds at trial.
However, counsel to Zenith Bank, Ajibola Aribisala (SAN), urged the court to dismiss the application, arguing that the alleged indebtedness remains valid and that the issues raised by Petrocam are matters for substantive trial.
He maintained that the freezing order was necessary to preserve the subject matter of the dispute, warning that lifting the restriction could jeopardise the bank’s chances of recovering the funds if judgment is eventually entered in its favour.
After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Aneke adjourned the matter to April 30, 2026, for ruling.
