Justice Chizoba Oji of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, has refused to grant two ex parte applications by Keystone Bank Limited, which sought to extend a Mareva injunction freezing accounts allegedly linked to TAK Logistics Limited.
The original injunction, granted by Justice A.I. Akobi on July 16, 2025, had expired after seven days. During the hearing on July 22, Justice Oji ruled that there was no legal basis to renew the interim orders during the court’s vacation period.
Justice Oji emphasized that Order 48 Rule 5(1) did not permit her to entertain the application in a part-heard matter and declined the request. She also directed that the case proceed at the Kubwa High Court after the vacation, as originally scheduled.
The case has stirred significant controversy, especially with TAK Agro Plc, which asserts that it has been misrepresented in the media concerning the dispute. TAK Agro has denied any involvement in the N24.9bn loan dispute, emphasizing that the credit facility was granted solely to TAK Logistics in January 2021 under the Central Bank of Nigeria’s RSSF/DCRR scheme, with Keystone Bank acting as the intermediary. The company stressed that it had no contractual relationship with Keystone Bank and that its chairman, Thomas Akoh Etuh, had severed ties with TAK Logistics well before the dispute arose.
TAK Agro Plc also pointed out that by July 2025, TAK Logistics had already repaid N9.78bn, roughly 40% of the facility, which has a seven-year term ending in 2028.
In their defense, the company raised concerns about procedural irregularities, alleging that the originating processes filed by Keystone Bank on June 18 were not served to TAK Logistics until July 18, and to TAK Agro and Mr. Etuh much later, on July 23.
During the hearing, Keystone Bank’s counsel, Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo (SAN), argued that the matter was urgent and should be heard during the vacation period. However, Michael Aondoakaa (SAN), representing TAK Logistics, opposed the motion, asserting that the application should not proceed without notifying the respondents, as it would affect their rights.
Despite Tayo-Oyetibo’s claim that the matter was urgent and required an ex parte hearing, Justice Oji ruled that the current case did not meet the requirements under Order 48, which allows urgent matters to be heard during vacation only under specific conditions.
Justice Oji’s ruling reinforced that the matter would be heard after the vacation at the Kubwa High Court, where it was originally scheduled.
