Kam Industries Urges Court to Vacate N3bn Mareva Injunction in Ecobank Dispute
Kam Industries Nigeria Limited has approached the Federal High Court in Lagos seeking the reversal of an ex parte Mareva injunction obtained by Ecobank Plc over an alleged $9.5 million credit transaction.
On October 7, 2024, Justice Daniel Osiagor granted Ecobank’s request to freeze the company’s assets, restraining 25 Nigerian banks and financial institutions from releasing funds, shares, bonds, letters of credit, promissory notes, and other negotiable instruments totaling ₦3,000,681,722.97 and $6,824,638.75. The order is pending the determination of the main suit, FHC/L/CS/1748/2024.
Kam Industries, alongside co-defendants Kamoru Yusuf and Kamsteel Integrated Company, is challenging the injunction.
At a recent hearing, defense counsel Yakub Dauda urged the court to vacate the order, arguing that Ecobank withheld key facts that influenced the court’s decision. Citing the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019, Dauda contended that the proceedings lacked jurisdiction and violated the defendants’ right to fair hearing.
Dauda explained that in 2023, a tripartite FX Forward Contract was entered into by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Ecobank, and the defendants. Under the agreement, the CBN was to supply U.S. dollars to Ecobank for onward credit to the defendants, thereby creating a repayment obligation. However, the CBN has allegedly failed to deliver the foreign currency. Despite this, Ecobank issued a repayment demand on July 14, 2024, which the defendants refuted in a letter dated July 29, 2024.
According to Dauda, Ecobank did not respond but instead obtained the injunction on September 27, 2024, without serving the defendants. He argued that the defendants have verifiable assets within Nigeria worth ₦150.6 billion and pose no risk of asset flight.
Dauda further alleged that Ecobank’s legal team bypassed due process and issued threatening letters to the affected banks, interpreting the court’s order unilaterally. He also noted that the ex parte order, intended for urgent relief, wasn’t served until March 18, 2025—six months later—thus undermining its urgency.
He warned that if the defendants were to repay the loan using alternative FX sources while awaiting the CBN’s USD supply, it would result in FX “round-tripping,” a violation of CBN rules.
Dauda concluded that since no party in the case is a federal agency, the matter lies outside the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction and should be heard by a State High Court instead.
In response, Ecobank’s counsel, Kemi Balogun (SAN), insisted the defendants still owe the bank and the injunction is necessary to prevent asset dissipation before judgment is rendered. She maintained that the court has the jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Balogun also asked the court to discharge five banks—Union Bank, Moniepoint Microfinance, TAJ Bank, CSAS Bank, and Standard Chartered Bank—that had complied with the court order, and the court granted the request.
Justice Osiagor has set June 4, 2025, for judgment.
