Neconde Seeks Court Protection as Dispute Over OML 42 Loan Pressures Intensify

KEY POINTS

• Neconde Energy is asking a Federal High Court to block lenders and the NUPRC from interfering in operations on OML 42 over an alleged loan dispute.
• The company argues the lenders’ first charge has not crystallised and cannot be used to justify any takeover or disruption of the asset.
• Plaintiffs claim several banks have threatened enforcement actions tied to Nestoil’s liabilities, prompting them to seek a perpetual injunction.

Neconde Energy has turned to the Federal High Court in Abuja in an attempt to stop the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission, NUPRC, from permitting a group of local and international lenders to interfere with operations on Oil Mining Lease 42, a major onshore asset in the Niger Delta. 

Neconde claims that the lenders are leaning on the regulator to back moves linked to an alleged outstanding loan, a position it insists has no legal footing.

The matter is now before Justice Mohammed Umar, following a suit jointly filed by Neconde, White Dove Shipping Company and four other entities. 

They are seeking to restrain the NUPRC, four commercial banks, Afreximbank and three additional firms from what they describe as attempts to disrupt or assume control of the OML 42 joint venture. 

The Federal Government owns a majority 55 per cent stake in the block and is the designated operator.

At the heart of the dispute is an NUPRC letter dated 15 October 2025, bearing reference NUPRC/LD/CPL/2839/Vol.2/2025/94, which the plaintiffs say opened the door for agents of the listed lenders to intrude upon the operations of the asset. 

They argue that such interference is unwarranted because the lenders’ first charge over Neconde has not crystallised, meaning the underlying loan obligations have not reached the stage where assets can be seized or enforcement can begin.

Plaintiffs argue lenders’ claims remain unripe and subordinate

In the filings submitted by senior advocates Mohammed Diri and Chino Obiagwu, the plaintiffs asked the court to grant a perpetual injunction against the NUPRC and the various banks. 

They want the court to hold that no lender can move to seize or control Neconde’s assets under any credit arrangement as long as the terms of those facilities remain live and unresolved.

The plaintiffs say the regulator’s letter was issued in error, because the credit agreements referenced by the lenders have neither matured into enforceable action nor defaulted in a way that would empower any bank to step in.

They stress that even the lenders financing Nestoil—identified as Access Bank, Zenith Bank, UBA, Ecobank, FCMB, Fidelity Bank, Afreximbank and First Bank—cannot lawfully act against Neconde. Their charges, according to the suit, are subordinate and incomplete, lacking the priority or the legal maturity required to trigger enforcement.

Neconde and its co-plaintiffs further allege that the banks have threatened to seal off, take over or dispose of their assets on the back of liabilities owed by Nestoil.