By Ranti Thomas
Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke of the Federal High Court in Ikoyi, Lagos, has fixed April 30, 2026, to deliver a ruling on an application filed by Petrocam Trading Nigeria Ltd seeking to lift an order freezing its bank accounts over an alleged N9.05 billion debt claimed by Zenith Bank.
The court had earlier granted the freezing order following an ex parte application by the bank, aimed at securing funds it claims are owed by Petrocam and its principal as of May 2025.
At the resumed hearing, Petrocam urged the court to set aside the order, arguing that it was obtained through concealment of key facts and has severely disrupted the company’s operations.
Petrocam maintained that it is not indebted to the bank, insisting that all obligations under a 2014 import finance arrangement have been fully settled. The company stated that billions of naira generated from petroleum sales were paid directly into the bank, supported by financial records.
It further explained that the financing arrangement involved repayment through petroleum proceeds and government-backed instruments under the fuel subsidy regime, noting that any delays were due to late payments by the Federal Government, which were later cleared.
The firm also accused the bank of failing to comply with a directive of the Central Bank of Nigeria requiring full interest waivers on subsidy-related debts, alleging that charges continued to be applied even after regulatory intervention.
In its defence, Petrocam relied on a document said to have been issued by the bank in December 2024 confirming that the company was not indebted, describing the current claim as contradictory.
The company also challenged the process leading to the suit, stating that no valid demand notice was served before the case was filed, and describing a later demand letter as improperly addressed and an afterthought.
Petrocam further accused the bank of mismanaging the transaction, including failure to secure foreign exchange for credit facilities and improper accounting of funds, which it said contributed to the dispute.
Meanwhile, the second defendant denied personal liability, stating he acted only on behalf of the company and did not guarantee the facility, while also rejecting allegations of fraud or diversion of funds.
Zenith Bank, however, opposed the application, insisting that the debt is valid and that the issues raised by Petrocam should be determined at trial. The bank argued that the freezing order is necessary to protect the funds in dispute.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the court adjourned the matter to April 30, 2026, for ruling.