Court docket Freezes Plural Oil’s Accounts Over N3.1bn And $835,000 Debt As EFCC Examine Diversion.

Justice Akintayo Aluko of the Federal Excessive Court docket in Lagos has granted an interim order freezing the financial institution accounts of Plural Oil Advertising Restricted and two of its administrators over an alleged indebtedness of N3.17 billion and $835,486.76 owed to Providus Bank Restricted.

The order, delivered on October 7, 2025, adopted an ex parte software filed by Providus Bank by means of its counsel, Mr. Mitchel Aribisala, looking for to restrain the defendants and several other monetary establishments from tampering with funds linked to the oil advertising firm pending the willpower of a substantive movement.

The defendants within the swimsuit, marked FHC/L/CS/2015/2025, are Plural Oil Advertising Restricted, Mr. Babatunde Olukunle Oyefolu, and Ms. Oluwatobiloba Ayomide Oyefolu.

Within the interim Order, Justice Aluko directed 30 business and service provider banks in Nigeria to instantly freeze all accounts belonging to, or related to, the defendants as much as the worth of ?3,169,133,292.27 and $835,486.76.

The affected monetary establishments embody Access Bank, Zenith Bank, Guaranty Trust Financial institution, United Financial institution for Africa, First Financial institution, Stanbic IBTC, Fidelity Bank, Ecobank, and Polaris Bank, amongst others.

The choose additionally ordered the banks to position a lien or post-no-debit restriction on any account operated by the defendants, both immediately or not directly, pending the willpower of the financial institution’s movement on discover.

The order extends to accounts linked to the defendants’ Financial institution Verification Numbers (BVNs) — 22155183546 and 22251673428 — which had been utilized in working Plural Oil’s accounts.

As well as, the Court docket listed a number of digital cost platforms and settlement methods, together with the Nigerian Inter-Financial institution Settlement System (NIBSS), Interswitch Restricted, Opay Digital Companies, MoMo Fee Service Financial institution, Unified Funds, Hydrogen Fee Companies Firm, and Hope Fee Service Financial institution, directing them to not honour any debit directions on the affected accounts till additional order of the courtroom.

Justice Aluko additionally mandated all of the respondent banks to file an affidavit of return inside seven days of service, disclosing all accounts linked to the defendants’ BVNs; the balances in every account; and the transactional historical past for the previous six months.

Moreover, the choose granted go away to Providus Bank to serve courtroom processes on the 2nd and third defendants — Babatunde and Oluwatobiloba Oyefolu — by substituted means by means of pasting at their final recognized tackle at No. 8A, Lalupon Shut, Ikoyi, Lagos.

Nevertheless, the courtroom declined an identical request concerning the first defendant, Plural Oil Advertising Restricted, noting that as a company entity, it couldn’t be served by such means.

Justice Aluko held that the freezing order would stay in power pending the listening to and willpower of the movement on discover, and directed Providus Bank to file an endeavor as to damages to indemnify the defendants ought to it’s discovered that the order was wrongly granted.
The matter was adjourned to October 22, 2025, for listening to of the substantive software.

Providus Bank, in its supporting Affidavit deposed to by Ms. Arith Esin, a Restoration and Remedial Officer, alleged that the defendants had been indebted to the financial institution to the tune of ?3.17 billion and $835,486.76 as of September 24, 2025.

In response to the financial institution, the debt arose from a sequence of credit score services granted to Plural Oil Advertising Restricted for the importation of Base Oil — a uncooked materials utilized in lubricant mixing — which the corporate and its administrators allegedly didn’t repay regardless of repeated calls for.

The Affidavit detailed how the enterprise relationship started in 2018, when the first defendant opened a present account with Providus Bank. Subsequent mortgage services had been granted by means of confirmed Letters of Credit score and overdraft traces, later restructured a number of instances as time loans between 2021 and 2023 attributable to persistent default.

Providus Bank said that regardless of a number of restructurings and extensions, Plural Oil failed to fulfill its reimbursement obligations. The financial institution additional accused the defendants of unlawfully promoting financed Base Oil that had been pledged as collateral and diverting the proceeds with out remitting them towards their debt obligations.

In January 2024, the financial institution stated its officers found that the Base Oil saved at Nosak Tank Farm in Lagos had been secretly bought, opposite to the mortgage phrases that vested possession of the financed product within the financial institution till full reimbursement. The invention prompted Providus Bank to petition the Financial and Monetary Crimes Fee (EFCC) for investigation into what it described as “fraudulent diversion and conversion” of the collateral.

Providus Bank additionally tendered copies of the private ensures executed by the 2nd and third defendants, Babatunde and Oluwatobiloba Oyefolu, who had pledged to be personally answerable for the corporate’s money owed and supplied affidavits of web price as safety for the loans.

The courtroom, happy that there was an pressing must protect the funds within the defendants’ accounts to forestall dissipation of property, granted the interim orders pending additional proceedings.

In the meantime, Plural Oil Advertising Restricted and its director, Mr. Babatunde Olukunle Oyefolu, have approached the Court docket in Lagos looking for to put aside the ex parte order obtained by Providus Bank Plc freezing their financial institution accounts

In a movement on discover filed by their counsel, Dr. Sulaiman Usman (SAN), the Candidates, Plural Oil Advertising Restricted and Mr. Babatunde Oyefolu are asking the courtroom to vacate the order made in Go well with No. FHC/L/CS/2015/2025, describing it as oppressive, unconstitutional, and obtained in breach of their basic rights.

They argued that the order was granted with out service of the originating processes and with out credible proof linking the listed BVNs — 22155183546 and 22251673428 — to the alleged indebtedness claimed by Providus Bank.

In a 27-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Mr. Oluwatobiloba Ayomide Oyefolu, a director of the first Defendant/Applicant, the corporate stated its operations had been immediately disrupted on October 9, 2025, when a number of of its accounts and people of its officers had been frozen following an ex parte software by the financial institution.

Oyefolu said that the corporate first grew to become conscious of the order when it obtained a forwarding letter dated October 9, 2025, from AOS Apply, counsel to the Plaintiff/Respondent, directing business banks to freeze all accounts linked to the BVNs specified within the courtroom order.

He contended that the order was granted earlier than the originating processes had been even served, noting that the enrolled order itself granted go away for substituted service — confirming that no legitimate service had been effected on the time.

The deponent additional described the freezing directive as a “blanket order” extending to unrelated accounts of third events and people who weren’t events to the swimsuit.

In response to him, the order amounted to judicial overreach and violated Sections 36 and 44 of the 1999 Structure (as amended), which ensures the suitable to truthful listening to and safety from illegal deprivation of property.

Plural Oil and its director additionally argued that there was no prima facie proof linking the frozen funds to them or exhibiting any imminent threat of asset dissipation to justify an ex parte injunction.

They alleged that Providus Bank offered no affidavit proof or documentary proof that the funds in these accounts had been proceeds of any transaction involving the financial institution.

Mr. Oyefolu additional alleged that the Respondent mischaracterised a purely civil banking dispute as a prison matter when it earlier petitioned the Financial and Monetary Crimes Fee (EFCC), accusing the Candidates of acquiring cash by false pretences.

He stated that following the petition, the EFCC detained him for seven days below dehumanising situations — an motion he described as a gross abuse of course of designed to embarrass and punish the Candidates earlier than any judicial willpower of legal responsibility.