Material Facts' Suppression: Court Unfreezes Petralon Accounts With 18 Banks

Justice Daniel Osiagor of a Federal High in Ikoyi, Lagos, has vacated an order earlier granted to eighteen (18) banks to freeze the accounts of Petralon 54 Limited and its parent company, Petralon Energy Limited.

The judge decided as a result of the discovery of material facts’ suppression and deliberate falsehood by Eurafric Energy.

Ruling on a motion instituted by the company, asking the court to unfreeze the frozen accounts, the presiding judge, held that the court was misled into granting an order freezing the company’s accounts.

Justice Osiagor lifted the order by unfreezing the bank accounts and cancelling the Post No Debit order already in effect across all the restrained banks.

Petralon 54’s Affidavit in response to Eurafric’s Counter Affidavit deposed to on October 12, 2022, and the Reply Address in support of the motion to set aside the exparte orders had revealed to the court that Eurafric had misinformed it and caused the institution of justice to act in error.

It would be recalled that Eurafric Energy had approached the court, asking it to bar operations and transactions on the bank accounts belonging to Petralon 54, its parent company, Petralon Energy, and an unrelated company, Tako E&P Solution, on the ground that the three oil companies did not declare the total quantity of crude sold, the amount it was sold, and the royalty paid to the government in a Federal Government Agency transaction.

However, in a Motion filed by Petralon 54, it prayed the court to lift the order banning the operation of its account, arguing that the defendants, particularly Eurafric Energy, ‘suppressed and deliberately’ hid material facts concerning the case from the court.

In his consolidated judgment, Justice Osiagor ruled that Exhibit Volte Face F, exhibited in the Plaintiff’s Counter Affidavit and Exhibit G exhibited in the Defendant’s Counter, clearly indicated that the Plaintiff (Eurafric Energy) gave consent for a loan of $2.2m to be obtained thereby making it a party to the debt repayment efforts to the holding bank which the funds it sought to freeze pertained to, but this fact was not disclosed to the court before the restraining Order on the Defendant’s accounts.

Findings revealed that until June 28, 2022, when Petralon 54 became the sole operator of the Dawes Island Field having been granted Petroleum Prospecting Licence No. 259 (PPL 259) by the Federal Government of Nigeria in accordance with the Petroleum Industry Act, 2021, the plaintiff (Eurafric Energy), Petralon 54, and Tako E&P Solutions were joint venture (JV) partners.

The JV arrangement covered operation at the Dawes Island Marginal Field initially awarded to the Plaintiff (Eurafric Energy), which was revoked on the grounds of operational ineptitude, poor management and asset abandonment for more than fourteen years, resulting in loss of revenue to the Federal Government of Nigeria and being inimical/adversely impacting the development of Okrika communities, River State, where the asset is situated.

Earlier in the transaction, the JV had secured a loan of $2.2 million from Access Bank for operational activities, with a crude sale proceeds domiciliation agreement with the Bank to offset the JV indebtedness.

In its alleged misleading presentations to the court, Eurafric Energy was accused of concealing the knowledge of the loan, which exhibit Volte Face F in its Counter Affidavit and Defendant’s exhibit ‘G’ in its Counter process, proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reviewing the process, an industry and legal analyst, Ibrahim Ajila asserted that “Eurafric Energy hoodwinked the Court into granting an ex-parte mareva, this could bring the judiciary into disrepute, cause significant economic losses and reputational damage, not only to the defendant but to the financial institutions involved in the transaction.

“This is an abuse of our judicial process, a premeditated malicious and gross intent to destroy the operations and reputation of another corporate entity through the propagation of falsehood, which is designed to pitch the entity against investors, and impair its capacity to continue to receive funding from international capital sources.”

All rights reserved. This material and other digital volumes on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from THE NEWS ACCELERATOR NETWORK.

Contact: thenewsacceleratornetwork@gmail.com or 08033599492.

 

Post a Comment

To be published, comments must be reviewed by the administrator *

Previous Post Next Post
"