UBA Secures Mareva Injunction Against Vitol, Shipping Firms Over Alleged $242m Cargo Diversion
United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc has successfully obtained interim preservative orders, including a Mareva Injunction, from the Lagos State High Court against Vitol SA, a prominent Swiss energy trading firm, and four associated shipping companies. This legal action stems from UBA’s allegations of the wrongful release of petroleum product cargoes that were consigned to the bank’s order under the Bills of Lading.
The application, spearheaded by Bode Olanipekun, SAN, lead counsel for UBA, sought to prevent the dissipation of assets and any dealings with funds up to the disputed $242 million amount by Vitol SA. In a ruling delivered last Thursday, Justice K. A. Jose (Mrs.) granted three key prayers from UBA’s application, effectively freezing the assets of the respondents pending the determination of the substantive suit. The court’s decision was made pursuant to Order 43 Rule 1 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019 and the Lagos State High Court Practice Direction No. 2 of 2019.
In the forthcoming substantive proceedings, UBA intends to argue that Vitol SA and the vessel owners are liable for conversion, misrepresentation, and negligence due to the non-delivery of the petroleum products. The bank’s case is supported by an affidavit deposed to by Anthony Chilaka, UBA’s Group Head of Recoveries and Remedial Management. Chilaka stated that UBA had issued a letter of credit for Vitol SA to facilitate a petroleum products transaction. The cargo was transported to Nigeria, and the vessel masters issued multiple bills of lading. Crucially, Vitol SA subsequently endorsed these bills of lading “to the order of” UBA and delivered the original copies to the bank.
UBA maintains that this endorsement granted it the right to take possession of the cargo upon the completion of its voyage. However, the bank asserts that it has not received the gasoil, despite the voyage being concluded. The affidavit further alleges that the cargo was instead applied to the use of another party, which UBA contends constitutes conversion and negligence on the part of the respondents. The bank argues that the respondents failed to fulfil their obligations arising from the transaction and the endorsement of the shipping documents. UBA also noted that other cargoes associated with similar transactions were similarly diverted after their voyages, rather than being delivered to the bank. The application also 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.
