Nigeria Federal High Court: Mareva R28 Adebutu $100 Million Order

• The Federal High Court in Lagos issued three interim orders against R28 Limited and its founder, Adebisi Adebutu.
• The orders, a Mareva injunction, were granted by Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa on October 22, 2026.
• R28 Limited and Adebisi Adebutu are restrained from taking over operational assets of two companies.
• They are also prohibited from dealing with financial assets up to $100 million and altering corporate records of the companies.
• This asset freezing order aims to prevent dissipation of assets during a commercial dispute.

The Federal High Court Lagos injunction in this instance demonstrates the judiciary's readiness to act decisively to safeguard commercial interests and maintain the status quo during ongoing disputes.

The Federal High Court in Lagos recently issued a comprehensive set of interim orders, effectively imposing a Mareva injunction against R28 Limited and its founder, Adebisi Adebutu. These significant directives, handed down by Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa on October 22, 2026, aim to prevent specific actions by the named parties concerning certain assets and corporate affairs.

The court's ruling specifically prohibits R28 Limited and Adebisi Adebutu from three key activities. Firstly, they are restrained from taking over the operational assets belonging to two distinct companies. Secondly, the order prevents them from dealing with financial assets valued at up to $100 million. Lastly, the injunction forbids any attempts to effect changes to the corporate records of the two affected companies, thereby preserving their existing structures.

This type of judicial intervention, commonly known as a Mareva injunction or asset freezing order, is a powerful tool employed by courts to prevent a defendant from dissipating or removing assets from the jurisdiction before a final judgment can be rendered. The primary purpose is to ensure that if a plaintiff ultimately succeeds in their claim, there will be sufficient assets available to satisfy any awarded damages or remedies. The $100 million figure specified in the order highlights the substantial financial value of the assets being protected.

Such an interim order is typically granted when there is a real risk that the defendant might take steps to frustrate the enforcement of a potential judgment. The Federal High Court Lagos injunction in this instance demonstrates the judiciary's readiness to act decisively to safeguard commercial interests and maintain the status quo during ongoing disputes. The order is temporary, designed to hold assets in place until the substantive legal issues can be fully adjudicated.

The issuance of this high-value Mareva order against R28 Limited and Adebisi Adebutu by the Nigeria Federal High Court sets a notable precedent for commercial litigation and asset protection within the country. It underscores the court's willingness to intervene proactively to prevent interference with operational assets and financial holdings, particularly in disputes involving substantial sums and corporate control. This decision reinforces the availability of robust legal mechanisms for parties seeking to protect their interests against potential asset dissipation or unauthorized corporate actions.

This ruling could have broader implications for how commercial disputes are approached in Nigeria, signaling that courts are prepared to issue far-reaching interim orders to preserve assets and prevent prejudice to litigants. The restraining operational assets Nigeria aspect of the order is particularly significant, as it goes beyond mere financial accounts to protect the very operational capacity of the affected companies. This demonstrates a comprehensive application of judicial power to ensure fairness and prevent irreparable harm in complex commercial matters.

Lawyers advising clients on commercial disputes or asset protection in Nigeria should note this significant Mareva order, which demonstrates the Federal High Court's readiness to issue high-value interim injunctions to prevent asset dissipation and interference with operational assets, particularly against specific corporate entities and their founders. This could impact due diligence or litigation strategy involving similar parties or circumstances.

Source: Original reporting via TheNigeriaLawyer