Justice Chizoba Oji of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory has rejected two ex-parte applications filed by Keystone Bank Limited seeking to extend a Mareva injunction that had earlier frozen multiple bank accounts allegedly linked to TAK Logistics Limited. The judge cited lack of legal basis to renew the interim orders during the court’s vacation.
The original interim injunction, granted by Justice A.I. Akobi on July 16, 2025, lapsed seven days later. However, efforts by Keystone Bank to extend the freezing order during vacation were declined by Justice Oji in a ruling delivered on July 22.
“I do not think that Order 48 Rule 5(1) permits me to take the application of the learned senior counsel for the Applicant in a part-heard matter,” Justice Oji held.
“Accordingly, I hereby refuse the invitation to hear the application. The parties shall proceed to Kubwa High Court after vacation for continuation of their matter before Justice Akobi.”
The case has triggered significant public attention, particularly over the alleged involvement of Mr. Thomas Akoh Etuh, chairman of TAK Agro Plc. In a formal response, the company refuted any direct link to the disputed N24.9 billion loan at the heart of the matter.
TAK Agro clarified that the credit facility was exclusively granted to TAK Logistics Limited in January 2021 under the Central Bank of Nigeria’s Real Sector Support Facility/Differentiated Cash Reserve Requirement (RSSF/DCRR) Scheme, with Keystone Bank acting as the financial intermediary.
“AK Agro Plc is not a party to the loan agreement,” the company said in a statement. “Our chairman, Mr. Etuh, who was once a non-executive director on TAK Logistics’ board, had disengaged well before the facility was disbursed.”
The company also noted that 40% of the loan—approximately ₦9.78 billion—had already been repaid by TAK Logistics as of July 2025. The facility’s seven-year tenor is set to mature in 2028, suggesting the bank’s action may be premature.
At the hearing, Keystone Bank’s counsel, Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo, SAN, presented two fresh ex-parte motions filed on July 21, including M/9971/25 seeking leave for the court to sit during vacation, and M/9970/25, the substantive application for an extension of the freezing order.
However, opposing counsel Michael Aondoakaa, SAN, representing TAK Logistics, alongside a legal team including A.T. Kohol, C.O. Nnaeto, Mathew Onoja, Atna Kuyembo, and Abdulbasit Shuaib, strongly objected.
“This is not a fresh suit as contemplated under Order 48. It is already before another judge, who granted the original orders and fixed a return date,” Aondoakaa argued.
READ ALSO: Court orders Keystone Bank to pay N20.5m to ex-Staff over unlawful dismissal
“He (Keystone Bank) cannot now bring an ex-parte application during vacation without notice to the respondents, especially when that would affect our rights.”
The defense also highlighted procedural lapses, stating that although Keystone filed the originating processes on June 18, TAK Logistics was only served on July 18, and TAK Agro and Mr. Etuh were not served until July 23—after the injunction had taken effect.
Aondoakaa further gave an undertaking to the court, pledging that all assets covered under the debenture agreement (Exhibit K) would not be dissipated. In response, Tayo-Oyetibo argued that the assets in Exhibit K were part of the substantive suit and should not influence the court’s decision on jurisdiction.
Keystone’s counsel insisted the court was within its powers to hear the application, citing Order 48 Rule 5 of the FCT Civil Procedure Rules 2025.
“The rule says where the matter is urgent, the application may be brought ex-parte. The law is clear. We cannot be punished for obeying it,” Tayo-Oyetibo said.
“A court order is not made in vain. If learned silk for the defendants says he is in court in obedience to a court order, then he should allow the proceedings to go on.”
Nonetheless, Justice Oji sided with the defense, noting that the rule did not empower her court to entertain an already part-heard matter during the judicial vacation.
“Order 48 Rule 5 does not include (e) as one of the exceptions,” she ruled. “This matter shall proceed to Kubwa High Court after the vacation.”
With the matter now adjourned to resume before Justice Akobi at the Kubwa High Court after the vacation, the dispute is expected to test the enforceability of corporate guarantees and the boundaries of banking liabilities involving third-party entities like TAK Agro and Mr. Etuh.
For now, the Mareva injunction remains lapsed, and affected parties await the full hearing to determine the substance of the case.