0
The High Court sitting in Ifo, Ogun State, has ordered accelerated hearing in a suit arising from a disputed transaction involving the proposed acquisition of assets belonging to Dolphin Steels Nigeria Limited, a company currently under receivership.
The suit, marked HCF/146/2026, was filed by Prodigy Finance Limited against a new generation bank and Mr. Olugbenga Ajala, Receiver/Manager of Dolphin Steels Limited.
Justice Ogunfowora made the order on Monday, August 3, 2026, while delivering a ruling in the matter.
The court noted that although the claimant had stated in its pleadings that the principal contractual sum paid by it had been refunded, its claims for damages arising from the alleged breach of the agreement would have to be determined at trial.
Consequently, the court declined to grant an injunction but ordered accelerated hearing of the substantive suit in the interest of justice.
The judge abridged the period within which the defendants are to file their respective defences to 21 days, while the claimant was given seven days to respond to the defences, if necessary.
The matter was adjourned until September 7, 2026, for commencement of the pre-trial conference.
The case arose from an agreement concerning the proposed sale of assets belonging to Dolphin Steels Nigeria Limited, which is under receivership.
Prodigy Finance Limited had expressed interest in acquiring the company’s assets, including its land, buildings, plant, machinery and scrap materials.
According to documents filed before the court, a letter dated May 13, 2026, stated that possession of the property would be handed over within 48 hours upon payment of 75 per cent of the agreed purchase price, while title documents would be released upon full payment.
The total purchase price was put at ₦2.25 billion.
The claimant stated that it subsequently paid ₦1.7 billion, representing approximately 75.6 per cent of the purchase price, into the designated receivership account on May 25, 2026.
However, according to Prodigy Finance, possession of the assets was not handed over within the period contemplated in the agreement.
The claimant also alleged that an executed copy of the Contract of Sale was not returned to it despite the document having been signed and forwarded by its solicitor.
In a letter dated June 10, 2026, Prodigy Finance requested clarification on the status of the transaction and sought confirmation of when possession of the assets would be handed over.
The dispute escalated when the Receiver/Manager subsequently communicated the termination of the transaction and proposed a refund of the ₦1.7 billion paid by Prodigy Finance.
The Receiver/Manager stated that the decision was taken on the instruction of the new generation bank in its capacity as creditor controlling the receivership estate.
He also stated that the payment had been made contrary to an earlier agreed payment structure.
Prodigy Finance, however, rejected the termination and proposed refund, maintaining that the payment was made pursuant to the understanding reached by the parties.
The claimant subsequently wrote to the Group Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer of the new generation bank, stating that it did not accept the refund and maintained that the transaction should be completed.
The company also demanded specific performance of what it described as the contractual obligations arising from the transaction.
Following the disagreement, Prodigy Finance commenced the present proceedings, seeking, among other reliefs, damages for alleged breach of contract, misrepresentation, recovery of funds, interest and costs.
The defendants are yet to present their respective defences following the court’s order abridging the time for filing their responses.
The substantive issues in dispute, including the circumstances surrounding the transaction and its termination, are expected to be determined during the hearing of the case.
