Court did not approve lawyer’s appointment as receiver – KEPCO, Others
The management of KEPCO Energy Resources Nigeria Limited and its partners have stated that the court did not approve the appointment of Kunle Ogunba SAN as Receiver/Manager of their power project. In a statement jointly signed by KEPCO, NG Power-HPS Limited, and New Electricity Distribution Company Limited, the firms accused Ogunba of misinterpreting court orders […]
The management of KEPCO Energy Resources Nigeria Limited and its partners have stated that the court did not approve the appointment of Kunle Ogunba SAN as Receiver/Manager of their power project.
In a statement jointly signed by KEPCO, NG Power-HPS Limited, and New Electricity Distribution Company Limited, the firms accused Ogunba of misinterpreting court orders in the matter.
They alleged that in newspaper publications of August 7 and 8, 2025, Ogunba presented himself as having court approval to act as Receiver/Manager for the project on behalf of certain banks.
The companies questioned why the lawyer appealed against the high court’s orders if he indeed had such approval.
- Budget: Uba Sani Is Committed To Citizen Engagement – Commissioner
- Tinubu appoints Prof. Ibrahim Yakasai VC, Federal University, Tsafe
“It is telling and indicates the obvious to the discerning public that the same party representing to the public that his appointment has been sanctioned by the court is the one challenging the decision as incorrect but failed to state so in his second publication of 8 August 2025.”
On June 24, 2025, the Federal High Court in Lagos, presided over by Justice Akintayo Aluko, issued an interim injunction restraining EcoBank Ltd, Access Bank Plc, First City Monument Bank Ltd, Fidelity Bank Plc, Sterling Bank Plc, United Bank for Africa Plc, Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, Zenith Bank Plc, FBNQuest Merchant Bank Ltd, and FBNQuest Trustees Ltd from calling or accelerating the facility they granted the companies.
The court further restrained the banks from “appointing a receiver/manager or manager of or over the undertakings or affairs of the plaintiff or any security provider under the security documents (defined in the second amended and restated facility agreement).”
In another order dated August 5, 2025, in a suit filed by New Electricity Distribution Company Limited, the court restrained the banks from enforcing any security over the applicants’ assets, business, or undertakings, whether registered or not. It also ruled that any receiver/manager must not take actions capable of dissipating the company’s assets pending the determination of the case.
Meanwhile, the banks have filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal in Lagos, challenging the trial court’s orders. They argue that the court overreached itself by limiting the powers of the receiver/manager in an earlier suit — FHC/L/CS/1281/2025: Zenith Bank Plc & 11 others v Sahara Energy Resources Ltd — even after recognising the appointment.
Commenting on the matter, an Abuja-based lawyer, Ebuka Nwaeze Esq, told Daily Trust that an entity can challenge the appointment of a receiver if it believes the same to be unlawful or not in line with the underlying agreement, maintaining that the receiver must act and file cases in court.
The Egbin Power arose from the privatisation of the Egbin Thermal Power Station in Nigeria, which was finalised in 2013. A joint venture between Sahara Power Group and KEPCO acquired 70 percent ownership of the plant for $407.3 million, while the Nigerian government retains 30 percent. The two firms have invested billions into the sector.