Guaranty Trust Bank Plc (GTBank) has asked a Federal High Court in Lagos to commit Stanbic IBTC Bank, some of its top executives and its lawyer, Mr. Justus C. Iheanacho, to prison over alleged disobedience of court orders.
Listed as alleged contemnors alongside the bank and Mr. Iheanacho are: Mr. Yinka Sanni, Mr. Wole Adeniyi, Mrs. Olubunmi Dayo-Olagunju, Mrs. Olufunke Amobi, Mr. Olu Delano, Mr. Eric Fajemisin, Mr. Kola Lawal, Mr. Remy Osuagwu, Mr. Abubakar Sadiq Bello, Mr. Helmut Engelbrecht, Ms. Rabi Isma, Mrs. Funeka Montjane, Mr. Simon Ridley and Mrs. Remilekun Soyannwo.
GTBank, through its counsel, Babatunde Adekunle Ogunba (SAN), prayed the court to commit the bank and the listed individuals to prison for allegedly disobeying an order of the court in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/1738/2024. The application was said to be brought pursuant to Order 35 Rules 1 and 2 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019, and under the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
In the contempt proceedings, GTBank sought, among other reliefs, an order granting leave to lift the veil of incorporation of the bank to permit committal proceedings against the cited persons for alleged flagrant disobedience of the court’s interim orders, as reflected in Forms 48 and 49 previously issued by the court.
The bank further requested an order committing Mr. Justus Iheanacho and the named executives described as the directing minds of the alleged contemnor to a correctional facility within the court’s jurisdiction for what it termed willful and deliberate disobedience of its interim orders.
GTBank also sought a consequential order mandating that the alleged contemnors remain in correctional custody until they purge themselves of the alleged contempt.
In an affidavit deposed to by Timileyin Oyefeso, a lawyer in the firm of Kunle Ogunba & Associates, it was stated that on October 25, 2024, the court issued preservative orders restraining the defendants from dissipating funds across all accounts and directing financial institutions to disclose balances linked to them.
According to the affidavit, despite being notified, Stanbic IBTC Bank allegedly provided false information under oath regarding the status of a key account belonging to one of the defendants. The bank was said to have claimed in an affidavit filed on November 8, 2024, that the account was unfunded. However, evidence later reportedly showed that days earlier, the same bank acknowledged placing a lien of R8.7 million on the account in compliance with the court’s order.
The deponent argued that the contradiction amounted to deliberate deception and an attempt to mislead the court. He further stated that there had been continued non-compliance even after a subsequent court order on February 24, 2026, reaffirming the attachment of the funds.
At the hearing, Ogunba (SAN), leading O.T. Ogunba, I.U. Odo and T.E. Oyefeso, appeared for GTBank. Adeyinka Olumide Fusika (SAN) appeared for the second defendant, while Mr. Justus C. Iheanacho represented Stanbic IBTC Bank. The bank was also represented by its Senior Legal Adviser, Nanli Samuel.
Ogunba informed the court of the motion for contempt dated March 27, 2026, and prayed that the cited parties be ordered to appear before the court on the next adjourned date to show cause why they should not be committed to prison, stating that all parties had been served.
In response, Iheanacho told the court that he had filed a counter-affidavit to Forms 48 and 49. He said the affidavit was to demonstrate that there was no such money as claimed by the applicant in the account of the fifth defendant maintained with the bank.
He added that he was unaware of GTBank’s earlier letter until served with the motion on notice and informed the court that a counter-affidavit opposing the motion was being filed. He described the letter relied upon by GTBank as a routine correspondence typically issued by banks to customers and stated that a staff member of the bank present in court could clarify its content.
The presiding judge, Justice Deinde Dipeolu, however observed that the content of the letter appeared clear and that no alternative meaning could be read into it.
Fusika (SAN) informed the court that, as a defendant in the suit, his client should be served with all processes filed by Stanbic IBTC Bank. He also expressed concern over the development, stating that it appeared to be becoming common practice for banks to depose to affidavits that later become contentious.
In reply, Iheanacho maintained that the letter did not indicate that funds existed in the fifth defendant’s account and sought an adjournment to properly respond to the issues raised.
Fusika also informed the court of a pending application for stay of proceedings but said he would not proceed with it for now in the interest of justice to allow progress in the contempt proceedings.
After hearing submissions from counsel, Justice Dipeolu adjourned the matter to April 20, 2026, and ordered the 1st to 16th alleged contemnors to appear in court on the adjourned date.
0 Comments