After months of impasse and epic legal battles, the iconic Nestoil Towers has been reopened for use by its owners and their promoters following two successive decisions of the Supreme Court in favour of Neconde Energy Ltd. and Nestoil Ltd., the most recent being the one delivered on June 1, 2026 setting aside the ex parte orders of the Court of Appeal, which gave judicial support to a receiver appointed by a club of junior lenders.
It would be recalled that on November 27, 2025, the Court of Appeal granted ex parte orders injunction in favour of the lenders and their appointed receiver.
The same court was to also subsequently disqualify the lawyers of Nestoil and Neconde and ordered that it is the lenders through the receiver as adversaries of Nestoil and Neconde that should appoint lawyers for the two companies.
Following the Court of Appeal ex parte orders, the Nestoil Towers complex was taken over and sealed with security operatives stationed to enforce the status quo.
Conspicuous inscriptions in red were marked on the building indicating that it was taken over on the order of court.
The commercial edifice remained sealed for over seven months as legal proceedings moved swiftly to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court on April 10, 2026 and June 1, 2026 delivered two landmark decisions, which set aside the two orders of the Court of Appeal disqualifying the companies’ lawyers and granting ex parte orders.
The judgment of June 1, 2026 is the most proximate and final force that removed every resistance to the unsealing and opening of the property.
It was gathered that, following the decision of the Supreme Court, the law firm of Wole Olanipekun & Co. made representations to the Inspector General of Police and Commissioner of Police in Lagos to immediately reopen the property, a request which was acceded to promptly in a commendable show of respect for the rule of law.
The actions of the police give an indication of a new narrative and positive mindset shift under the regime of the new IG.
Commenting on the development during a telephone conversation, lead counsel to Neconde, Bode Olanipekun (SAN), described the sealing of the property as “wasteful”.
He decried the situation where the property was sealed under the pretext of a court order when there was no such order in the first place.
According to the senior counsel, “it is unfortunate that bold markings were made on the building that possession was taken pursuant to orders of the Court of Appeal and Federal High Court when there was no order for possession by either of the Courts”.
He further stated that “There was no regnant inhibitive, punitive or prohibitive order of the Federal High Court as at the date the property was sealed and the ex parte orders of the Court of Appeal did not, in its express terms make an order for possession of the property”.
He commended the IG for bringing an end to the illegal actions.
The lenders had commenced the action that originated the legal battles at the Federal High Court against Nestoil, Neconde and their directors alleging indebtedness to them.
The case had remained stalled and frozen since last year because the same lenders obtained ex parte orders of the Court of Appeal staying proceedings in the action filed by them.
In Neconde and Nestoil’s appeal to the Supreme Court, they had argued that it was curious for the lenders to stay proceedings of their own case and in the same breath get rewarded with orders of injunction.
The Supreme Court set aside both the orders of injunction and the stay proceedings by which the lenders have stalled their own case.
With the removal of the clog put by the lenders, the case at the Federal High Court can now proceed for a determination of whether the lenders had any right in the first place to even appoint a receiver at all.
The coast for that determination is clear since there is no extant order of court permitting or authorizing the receiver to act.
It would be recalled that the Court of Appeal decision disqualifying Neconde and Nestoil’s lawyers was given on the pretext that appointing lawyers was part of the duties of a receiver upon appointment.
In setting aside the Court of Appeal’s decision, the Supreme Court decided that the nature of the case at the Federal High Court to determine the right to appoint a receiver and validity of such appointment will not permit of a situation for the receiver to perform duties before the case is decided.
About Author
