UBA Wins Court Order Against Vitol Over $242 Million Petroleum Cargo

A High Court in Lagos granted orders last Thursday against Vitol SA, a Switzerland-based energy trading company, and four other shipping firms in favor of United Bank for Africa Plc.

UBA accused Vitol of wrongly releasing cargo of petroleum products that were meant for the bank, as stated in the Bills of Lading.

Bode Olanipekun, SAN, who is the lead lawyer for UBA, asked the court to approve the interim orders against Vitol and the other shipping companies.

The presiding judge, Hon Justice K A Jose, ruled on the application. The judge granted three requests from UBA, including orders to stop Vitol S.A from using or dealing with assets and funds up to the disputed amount.

"Prayers 1, 3 are granted as prayed against the 2nd Respondent only," the judge said.

This application followed Order 43 Rule 1 of the Lagos State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019 and the Lagos State High Court Practice Direction No. 2 of 2019.

UBA plans to argue in the main case that Vitol SA and the vessel owners are responsible for conversion, misrepresentation, and negligence due to the failure to deliver the petroleum products.

The bank listed 34 financial institutions and public organizations, like commercial banks, merchant banks, microfinance banks, the Nigerian Ports Authority, and the Nigeria Customs Service, in relation to the application.

In a supporting affidavit, Anthony Chilaka, UBA’s Group Head of Recoveries and Remedial Management, said the bank issued a letter of credit to help Vitol SA with the petroleum product deal.

UBA claimed that the cargo was brought to Nigeria and that the masters of the vessels issued several bills of lading.

The bank also claimed that Vitol later endorsed the bills of lading "to the order of" UBA and gave the original copies to the bank.

UBA insisted that this endorsement allowed it to take possession of the cargo after the voyage was completed.

However, Chilaka noted that the bank did not receive the gasoil even after the voyage was completed.

"The applicant has not been given possession of the gasoil despite completion of the voyage," the affidavit said.

UBA alleged that instead, the cargo was used by another party, saying that the failure to deliver it was conversion and negligence.

The bank argued that the respondents had responsibilities from the deal and the endorsement of the shipping documents, which they did not meet.

UBA claimed that the cargo related to those deals was also sent to other parties instead of being delivered to them.