The legal standoff between Providus Bank Plc and Plural Oil Marketing Limited escalated as the company and its directors filed an application at the Federal High Court, Lagos, seeking to vacate an ex-parte order that froze their accounts across multiple banks.

In a Motion on Notice, Plural Oil, along with directors Babatunde Olukunle Oyefolu and Oluwatobiloba Ayomide Oyefolu, described the October 7, 2025 order as unlawful, oppressive, and a violation of their constitutional right to a fair hearing. They argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the order since it was issued before they were served with any originating processes, noting that the order itself directed the bank to effect substituted service.

The applicants stated they only became aware of the freezing on October 9, when compliance notices were forwarded from various banks. They described the action as a breach of Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the right to be heard before adverse judicial steps are taken, and accused Providus Bank of failing to make full disclosure when seeking the ex-parte order.

According to Plural Oil, the company had already paid N891,036,000 towards the disputed facility and formally requested reconciliation and restructuring the same day the bank approached the court. They also alleged that Providus Bank petitioned the EFCC, leading to the Managing Director’s seven-day detention under dehumanising conditions, despite the dispute being civil in nature.

The company argued that the bank’s delays in reconciliation over the past year were deliberate, intended to create a false sense of urgency to justify freezing accounts. They further claimed the order exceeded permissible preservation measures, affecting accounts where the directors were mere signatories and even accounts belonging to third parties, describing it as a violation of Section 44 of the Constitution, which protects property rights.

Plural Oil also vehemently denied allegations of diverting Base Oil financed through Letters of Credit, insisting that all transactions were legitimate and proceeds remitted to the bank. They stressed that the freezing crippled operations, halted business activities, and caused irreparable financial damage.

The applicants requested the court to vacate the ex-parte order ex-debito justitiae and restore immediate access to all affected accounts, while seeking a declaration that the order violated fair hearing principles and lacked jurisdiction, with costs awarded against Providus Bank.

Justice Akintayo Aluko has adjourned the hearing to December 22, 2025.