The Lagos State High Court has granted United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc interim asset-preservation orders against Switzerland-based energy trader Vitol SA over a dispute involving petroleum cargoes valued at $242 million allegedly diverted instead of being delivered to the bank.
Justice K. A. Jose granted three prayers in UBA’s application, including measures to prevent the dissipation of assets and dealings in funds up to the disputed amount. The orders were granted against Vitol SA, identified in the ruling as the second respondent.
“Prayers 1-3 are granted as prayed against the second respondent only,” the judge ruled.
The application sought interim preservative relief through a Mareva injunction, a legal measure designed to prevent a defendant from moving or disposing of assets in a way that could frustrate the enforcement of a potential judgment.
UBA’s application was brought under Order 43, Rule 1 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019 and Lagos State High Court Practice Direction No. 2 of 2019.
The dispute centres on UBA’s allegation that petroleum products shipped to Nigeria under a transaction financed by the bank were not delivered to it, despite shipping documents allegedly being endorsed in its favour.
In an affidavit supporting the application, Anthony Chilaka, UBA’s Group Head of Recoveries and Remedial Management, said the bank had issued a letter of credit in favour of Vitol to facilitate the petroleum products transaction.
According to the affidavit, the cargoes were transported to Nigeria, where the vessels’ masters issued bills of lading covering the shipments. Vitol subsequently endorsed the documents in favour of UBA and handed over the original copies to the bank, Chilaka stated.
UBA argued that the endorsement entitled it to take possession of the cargoes upon completion of the voyages. However, the bank alleged that the gasoil was not delivered despite the voyages being completed.
“The applicant has not been given possession of the gasoil despite completion of the voyage,” the affidavit stated.
The bank alleged that the cargoes were diverted for the benefit of another party rather than delivered to it, describing the alleged conduct as conversion and negligence. It also raised allegations of misrepresentation in connection with the transaction.
UBA intends to pursue substantive claims against Vitol SA and the owners of the vessels over the alleged diversion and non-delivery of the petroleum products.
The bank maintains that the parties had obligations arising from the transaction and the endorsement of the shipping documents but failed to fulfil them. It further alleged that cargoes linked to the transactions were redirected to other parties after completing their voyages.
The court application also named four other shipping companies alongside Vitol and cited 34 financial institutions and public agencies, including commercial banks, merchant banks, microfinance banks, the Nigerian Ports Authority and the Nigeria Customs Service, in connection with the proceedings.
However, the judge’s ruling expressly stated that the three prayers were granted against Vitol SA alone.
The interim orders represent a step in the ongoing dispute and do not, by themselves, establish liability for the alleged diversion. The substantive claims concerning the cargoes, shipping documents and responsibilities of the parties remain to be determined.