By Stephen Simon
Justice Akintayo Aluko of the Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos, has dismissed an application by Petrocam Trading Nigeria Limited seeking to vary a court order requiring it to provide a bank guarantee or bond as security for a disputed N9.05 billion claim brought by Zenith Bank.
Dismissing Petrocam’s application, Justice Aluko held that the request constituted an abuse of court process, characterizing it as an attempt to indirectly overturn a previous ruling delivered after hearing all parties on the merits.
The legal battle stems from an action filed by Zenith Bank to preserve funds allegedly owed by Petrocam and co-defendants. On March 30, 2026, the court initially granted an interim injunction freezing the defendants’ bank accounts up to N9,057,511,855.63. Following a challenge by Petrocam, Justice Aluko modified the order on May 4, 2026, offering the defendants the option to unfreeze their operations by providing a bank guarantee or bond for N9,511,185,353.53 alongside an undertaking as to damages.
Petrocam subsequently returned to court on July 15, 2026, seeking an extension of time and an order replacing the bank guarantee requirement with a simple form of undertaking.
In resolving the application heard on August 27, 2026, Justice Aluko rejected Petrocam’s reliance on Order 26 Rule 9(1) and (2) of the Federal High Court Rules 2019. The judge clarified that the provision applies strictly to ex parte orders, whereas the May 4 decision was an inter partes ruling arising from contested proceedings.
“The court had already exercised its discretion in the May 4 ruling by modifying the interim arrangement to secure the claimant’s interest. The power to vary an ex parte order cannot be deployed to revisit a considered inter partes decision,” the court held.
Justice Aluko also dismissed Petrocam’s argument that its counter-claim invalidated Zenith Bank’s right to secure the funds, emphasizing that interlocutory injunctions exist precisely to prevent eventual court judgments from being rendered nugatory.
Addressing the procedural impropriety of the application, the court noted that Petrocam had already filed an appeal against the May 4 decision at the Court of Appeal. Justice Aluko stressed that a court of coordinate jurisdiction cannot sit on appeal over its own decisions, adding that a litigant cannot simultaneously invoke appellate jurisdiction while asking the trial court to reverse the same ruling.
