Osun moves to vacate order freezing govt accounts over $13.9m award

The Osun State Government has filed an application before the Federal High Court in Lagos seeking to set aside an ex parte order restricting access to the state’s bank accounts over a $13.9 million arbitration award in favour of Gamji Nigeria Company Limited.

The state government, in a statement issued on Sunday by the Commissioner for Information and Public Enlightenment, Kolapo Alimi, said its legal team had commenced moves to vacate the order and protect the state’s rights through judicial review of the arbitration award.

The Federal High Court had ordered commercial banks to place a “Post No Debit” restriction on accounts operated by the Osun State Government.

Justice D.E. Osiagor issued the interim order following an application by Gamji, through its counsel, Yunus AbdulSalam, SAN, in a suit marked FHC/L/CS/1233/2026.

Reacting to the order, the Osun Government described it as “a product of deceit and substantial non-disclosure of material facts to the court,” adding that the arbitration award it sought to enforce was also “fraught with several irregularities.”

According to the statement, the development prompted the state’s legal team “to approach the High Court of Lagos State to set aside the award.”

The statement further read, “In fact, it was reported that the purported award which the ex-parte order of 9th September, 2026 referenced, does not exist as there was no arbitral award made against the state government in July 2024.

“The only arbitral award against the state government was in July 2026, and the said award is presently being challenged before the Lagos State High Court by the state government’s legal team.”

The government traced the dispute to a 2017 contract entered into under the administration of former Governor Adegboyega Oyetola.

It said the administration rejected a variation request by Gamji, particularly over its claim that the Osun State Government was indebted to the company to the tune of $15,982,638.22.

The statement said the dispute subsequently went to arbitration, alleging that the process was “deliberately mismanaged and handled to favour Gamji Nig. Co. Ltd., while denying the State Government a fair hearing and full participation in the arbitration process as mandated by best practice in the arbitration process.”

It added that the alleged irregularities in the arbitration proceedings and the resulting award had been brought before the Lagos State High Court.

According to the government, its counsel filed the suit seeking to set aside the arbitral award at the Lagos State High Court on September 1, 2026, before Gamji approached the Federal High Court.

The statement said a motion on notice was also filed alongside the originating motion, seeking to suspend execution of the award until the matter was heard and determined.

“Both the originating motion and the motion on notice were duly served on Gamji and its Counsel; as such, they were fully aware that the award was being challenged by the State Government,” the statement said.

It added that Gamji, despite being served with the court processes, “furtively approached the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos State to enforce the award – the same award that was being challenged by the State Government’s legal team before a Court of competent jurisdiction.”

The Osun Government further alleged that when Gamji approached the Federal High Court, it failed to disclose that the validity of the award was already being challenged before the Lagos State High Court.

It also alleged that the company did not inform the Federal High Court that it had been served with an application seeking to suspend execution of the award pending the determination of the challenge.

The government said its motion on notice seeking to set aside the September 9 order had been presented before the Federal High Court.

It added that the alleged conduct of Gamji had also been brought to the attention of the court.

“Since the matter is still sub judice, the State Government refrains from making any prejudicial comments on the merit of the case,” the statement concluded.