The Federal High Court in Lagos has ordered the freezing of assets and funds worth N448,263,172.41 in a debt recovery suit filed by Keystone Bank Limited against five defendants.
The order was granted on March 26, 2026, by Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke following an ex parte application argued by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo.
The defendants in the suit include Relic Resources, Olufunmilayo Emmanuella Alabi, Uwadiale Donald Agenmonmen, The Magnificent Multi Services Limited, and Raedial Farms Limited.
Justice Aneke issued a Mareva injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, or representatives from withdrawing, transferring, or dealing with any funds, shares, dividends, or financial instruments up to the disputed sum in any bank or financial institution across Nigeria.
The court further directed all financial institutions to immediately preserve any accounts linked to the defendants upon being served the order. Banks are also required to file affidavits within seven days, disclosing account balances and relevant statements tied to the affected parties.
In addition, the court granted a preservative order preventing the defendants from disposing of or encumbering any movable or immovable assets, including future or contingent interests, up to the value of the alleged debt.
The judge also approved substituted service of court documents on two of the defendants through courier delivery to their last known addresses. The case has been adjourned to April 9, 2026, for further mention.
According to court filings, the dispute arose from a N500 million overdraft facility granted to Relic Resources on March 28, 2023, with a 365-day tenure and an interest rate of 32 per cent per annum.
The bank stated that the facility, initially backed by a $200,000 cash collateral and later secured with a mortgaged property in Itunu City, Epe, Lagos, expired in March 2024, leaving an outstanding balance of over N448 million as of October 31, 2024.
In its affidavit, Keystone Bank alleged that the loan was diverted for personal use by one of the defendants and channelled into associated companies. It further claimed that the borrower has ceased operations and failed to honour repeated repayment demands issued between May and October 2025.
The bank argued that there was a significant risk of asset dissipation, which could frustrate the enforcement of any future judgment, prompting the request for urgent court intervention.
After reviewing the submissions, the court granted all reliefs sought, effectively preserving the assets pending the determination of the suit.
