Banking Drama: Court Schedules Decision On Petrocam’s ₦9 Billion Debt Battle

Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke of the Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos, has scheduled April 30, 2026, to deliver a ruling on an application by Petrocam Trading Nigeria Ltd seeking to lift an interim order freezing its bank accounts over an alleged ₦9.05 billion debt claimed by Zenith Bank Plc.....KINDLY READ THE FULL STORY HERE▶

The freezing order was originally issued in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/393/2026 following an ex parte application by Zenith Bank, intended to secure funds allegedly owed by Petrocam and its principal, Patrick Ilo, as of May 31, 2025.

During Thursday’s resumed hearing, Petrocam’s legal team—led by Gboyega Oyewole (SAN), with S. Isaac John (SAN), Kolawole Salami, and Ademola Adefolaju—urged the court to discharge the March 3, 2026 interim injunction. They argued that the order was obtained through suppression of material facts and had caused severe operational strain on the company.

Oyewole emphasized that Petrocam is a viable business with nationwide operations and that freezing its accounts has paralyzed daily activities, despite there being no genuine risk of asset dissipation.

‘We Are Not Indebted’ – Petrocam

In an affidavit by Sunmola Omolara, Petrocam’s Head of Trade, the company denied owing Zenith Bank, stating that all obligations under a 2014 import finance facility were fully settled. Petrocam asserted that over ₦7.4 billion in petroleum sales proceeds had been remitted directly to the bank, backed by documentation involving major industry players like Total Nigeria Plc and Oando Plc.

The company explained that repayment was structured via petroleum sales proceeds and Sovereign Debt Notes under the federal fuel subsidy program. Any temporary financing gaps arose from delays by the Federal Government in servicing the notes, but obligations were ultimately cleared between 2019 and 2020. Interest on the short-term facility was cancelled, with payments handled through the Debt Management Office. Petrocam claimed that Zenith Bank was fully aware of and participated in the subsidy-backed arrangement.

A key element of Petrocam’s defense is that Zenith allegedly failed to follow a Central Bank of Nigeria directive mandating 100% interest waivers on subsidy-related debts. While other banks complied, Zenith purportedly continued charging interest through 2023 and 2024, despite regulatory orders to refund excess charges.

Contradictory Evidence

Petrocam submitted a Letter of Non-Indebtedness dated December 16, 2024, purportedly from Zenith Bank, confirming that the company’s account was in credit and that it had no debt aside from a contingent liability linked to a bank guarantee. They argued that Zenith’s ₦9 billion claim contradicts this letter, undermining the legal basis for the freezing order.

The defendants also challenged the procedural validity of the suit, claiming no proper demand notice was issued before the case, and that the alleged demand letter surfaced in June 2025, reportedly sent to the wrong address. They noted that Petrocam’s longstanding relationship with Zenith Bank had been cordial, with no prior indication of debt.

Beyond disputing the claim, the defendants accused Zenith of negligence in managing the facility, including failing to secure required foreign exchange for letters of credit, continuing to impose charges despite regulatory interventions, and improperly accounting for remitted funds.

Patrick Ilo, the second defendant, also seeks to have his name removed from the suit, stating he provided no personal guarantee and bore no personal liability. He denied fraud or fund diversion, asserting that all inflows were domiciled with Zenith Bank.

Petrocam contended that the injunction was obtained in bad faith, without full disclosure, and without an undertaking as to damages. They argued that no serious issue exists for trial, the balance of convenience favors them, and Zenith can be compensated via damages if it ultimately prevails.

Zenith Bank’s Position

Zenith Bank’s counsel, Ajibola Aribisala (SAN), opposed the application, urging the court to uphold the freezing order. He argued that Petrocam’s disputes are matters for trial and do not justify lifting the interim injunction. Aribisala stressed that the preservation order protects the funds in question and ensures the bank can recover the alleged debt if judgment favors it.

After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Aneke adjourned the matter to April 30, 2026, for ruling.

Stay connected via Google News

Follow us for the latest travel updates and guides.