The Federal High Court in Abuja has issued stern warnings to the Managing Directors of First Bank of Nigeria Limited, Access Bank Plc, and Zenith Bank Plc, cautioning that they risk imprisonment for allegedly failing to comply with a subsisting court order in an ongoing dispute over a major oil asset.
The warning was contained in multiple Form 48 Notices of Consequences of Disobedience to Court Order, issued in connection with an interim directive delivered on 6 November 2025 in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/2369/2025.
The case centres on a high-value conflict involving onshore oil assets and the FSO Ugo Ocha tied to interests in the OML 42 Joint Venture, in which the Federal Government holds a 55 per cent stake.
Form 48 notices dated 13 November 2025 were served on First Bank’s Managing Director at the bank’s Marina Head Office in Lagos and its main branch on Muhammadu Buhari Way in Abuja.
The notices reminded the banks that the court had ordered all parties to maintain the status quo, warning that any deviation would amount to contempt.
“Unless you stop further disobedience and comply with the direction contained in the order… you will be guilty of contempt of court and will be liable to be committed to prison,” the notice stated. A copy of the court’s original order was attached to reinforce its seriousness.
The earlier directive reads in part “The Court hereby directs all parties to maintain the status quo as at today, the 6th day of November 2025. Parties are ordered not to deal with the subject matter of the litigation pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice for Interlocutory Injunction.”
The issuance of Form 48 marks the first stage of contempt proceedings, notifying the affected parties of potential sanctions for non-compliance.
The suit was filed by Neconde Energy Limited, White Dove Shipping Company Limited, and others against First Bank, Access Bank, Zenith Bank, and five additional defendants.
The notices, served between 7 and 13 November, warned that any action contrary to the court’s instruction to preserve the disputed assets would be treated as contempt.
The court has fixed 4 December 2025 for the hearing of the motion for interlocutory injunction and emphasised that any breach of its order before that date will attract “serious legal consequences.”
