FBNQuest vs Ikeja Electric: Kepco and others fault Nigerian Banks' Receivership Appeal

KEPCO Energy Resource Nigeria Limited, NG Power-HPS Limited, and New Electricity Distribution Company Limited (“the Power Entities”) have faulted an appeal instituted by Kunle Ogunba, SAN, on behalf of Nigerian banks, bordering on receivership claims.

The companies insisted that their assets are not in receivership, citing the pending appeal by Kunle Ogunba, SAN.

The fresh rejoinder was signed in a public notice issued by KEPCO Energy Resource Nigeria Limited, NG Power-HPS Limited, and New Electricity Distribution Company Limited.

Nairametrics previously reported that the management of Egbin Power Plc, Ikeja Electric Plc (IE), and First Independent Power Limited (FIPL) had denied being in receivership, adding that the court had warned against “adverse actions” by any party.

This was according to a statement by Babatunde Osadare, Chief Legal and Regulatory Officer of Ikeja Electric, on behalf of the power companies’ management.

Osadare further refuted false media reports alleging the appointment of “Kunle Ogunba SAN” as Receiver/Manager over the said entities.

A notice in ThisDay stated:

“TAKE NOTICE that ‘KUNLE OGUNBA. SAN, Legal Practitioner… has been appointed RECEIVER/MANAGER by MESSRS FBNQUEST TRUSTEES LTD over the entire undertakings, stocks, goodwill, plant and machinery, movable and fixed properties or assets of NEW ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD in RECEIVERSHIP and its 70% stake in IKEJA ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION PLC (IKEJA DISCo), pursuant to a SECURITY DEED dated the 26th day of AUGUST 2013 registered at the Corporate Affairs Commission, Abuja on the 29th day of AUGUST, dated the 19th day of AUGUST, 2014.”

Fresh Rebuttal Citing Pending Appeal The companies said they were constrained to make this publication in view of paid advertorials purporting to interpret and misrepresent decisions of the court, claiming, among other things, the alleged approval of the court for Kunle Ogunba SAN’s purported appointment as Receiver/Manager.

The companies reiterated that “there is no court sanction or approval for the said individual to act in the capacity he claims.”

Contrarily, there are alleged positive court orders made on 24th and 27th June 2025 and 5th August 2025, restraining him from acting, the companies continued.

“Notably, Kunle Ogunba, SAN, admitted in his publication of August 8, 2025, that he is an agent of disclosed principals. With this understanding, one would have expected that he would defer to the courts, which both personally restrained him, and also his principals acting through their agents,” the statement partly reads.

The companies added that after the senior lawyer’s initial alleged paid publication of 6th August 2025 suggesting court approval for his capacity to act as receiver/manager, he subsequently, on 7th August 2025, filed a Notice of Appeal against the same decision of the Federal High Court and stated in ground 10 thereof that: “the learned lower Court Judge erred when he held that the Receiver/Manager should be restrained from taking any adverse steps…”

“Why is he appealing against an order supposedly granted in his favour?” the companies queried.

They alleged that the appeal by the senior lawyer, who represents several financial institutions including FBNQuest, indicates that the same party representing to the public that his appointment has been sanctioned by the court is the one allegedly challenging “the decision as incorrect” but failed to state so in his second publication of 8 August 2025.

“The said publication also falsely suggests that the following quote was lifted verbatim from the court’s decision: ‘The appointment of a receiver/manager has been concluded, thus necessitating the PUBLIC caveats subject matter of their ill-conceived REJOINDER,’” the companies alleged.

Additionally, the companies claimed that Mr. Ogunba, SAN, has subjected his “purported appointment” to judicial determination in a pending suit (separately filed after the orders of 24th June 2025 in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1242/2025) initiated by him.

“The primary question posed for determination by him about his purported (and now judicially restrained) appointment as receiver/manager in the said suit is as follows:

“Whether the duly appointed Receiver/Manager… has the right to perform the functions as itemized in the respective Deeds of Appointment pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Companies and Allied Matters Act,” the companies alleged.

The power companies urged the public and their stakeholders to entirely ignore Mr. Ogunba’s advertorials, assuring that they will follow the legitimate process and not subject the legal dispute to media litigation/trial.What Nigerian Banks Are Appealing

Meanwhile, in the referenced notice of appeal of Ogunba (on behalf of some Nigerian banks and FBN Quest Trustees Limited) against Kepco, seen by Nairametrics, he is challenging “part”, not all of the ruling of the lower court.

In ground ten of his appeal, he argued that the learned lower Court Judge erred when he held that the Receiver/Manager should be restrained from taking “any adverse steps” even after simultaneously recognising his appointment as a statutory one that cannot be restrained.He argued that the lower court consequently occasioned a miscarriage of justice against the appellants (banks) and himself, their Receiver/Manager over the said power companies.

He sought “AN ORDER of this Honourable Court setting aside the portion of the Ruling and Consequential Order of the lower Court per Hon. Justice Akintayo Aluko delivered on the 5th August 2025, wherein he dismissed Reliefs 2 and 3 of the Appellants’ Motion challenging the jurisdiction of the lower Court, and consequently granted Reliefs 1 (a), (c), 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Respondent’s Motion for Interlocutory Injunction.”

Additionally, he sought an order granting the Appellants’ Motion filed on 4th July 2025, challenging the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the Respondent’s suit in its entirety, while dismissing their motion on notice.

The development highlights the growing legal dispute between banks and the associated power companies.

Visited 1 times, 1 visit(s) today