A Federal Capital Territory High Court sitting in Asokoro, Abuja, orders the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC) to freeze N7.15 billion linked to Parallex Bank Limited over a dispute involving letters of credit.
According to Mediaplusng.com, Justice Hauwa Gummi issues the interim order after an ex parte application filed by FHT Mega Express Limited, directing the financial regulators to withhold all funds standing to the credit of Parallex Bank to the tune of N7,154,677,000.
In the ruling dated December 18, 2025, the court orders that the disputed funds be transferred into an interest-yielding account under the custody and joint control of the CBN and NDIC. The judge rules that the funds must be preserved pending the hearing and determination of the substantive motion before the court.
Mediaplusng.com reports that the court grants all reliefs sought by the applicant and adjourns the matter to January 15, 2026, for the hearing of the motion on notice. Hearing notices are also issued to all respondents, including Parallex Bank Limited, the Central Bank of Nigeria, and the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Court documents show that the dispute arises from a banking relationship between FHT Mega Express Limited and Parallex Bank in 2023. The disagreement centres on funds deposited for the issuance of letters of credit intended to support international trade transactions.
According to the applicant, FHT Mega Express operates an account with Parallex Bank and deposits N7.15 billion as cash collateral for the establishment of letters of credit valued at $7.31 million. The funds are meant to facilitate the importation of goods through international suppliers.
The applicant tells the court that Parallex Bank issues an indicative offer of banking facilities on June 7, 2023. In the offer, the bank assures that the letters of credit will be issued promptly once the full cash collateral is provided and that foreign exchange sourcing will begin immediately.
However, FHT Mega Express alleges that Parallex Bank fails to issue the letters of credit as agreed. The company claims that despite depositing the full cash collateral, the bank does not utilise the funds for the intended purpose or complete the transaction within the agreed timeline.
The applicant further alleges that the bank delays the purchase of foreign exchange during a period of volatility in the foreign exchange market. According to the company, this delay results in a sharp increase in exchange rates, significantly affecting the cost of the transaction.
FHT Mega Express also tells the court that when the imported goods eventually arrive in Nigeria, Parallex Bank demands additional funds. The bank reportedly claims the extra payment is required to cover foreign exchange differentials arising from changes in exchange rates.
The applicant argues that the demand for additional funds is unjustified and directly linked to the bank’s failure to act promptly. It insists that it fulfils all its obligations by providing the full naira equivalent required for the transaction at the outset.
The company further alleges that Parallex Bank refuses to release the bill of lading for the imported goods. As a result, the containers are abandoned at the port and later auctioned by the Nigeria Customs Service to third parties.
According to FHT Mega Express, the failure to release the shipping documents causes significant financial losses, including the loss of the imported goods and disruption to its business operations.
The applicant states that it makes repeated demands for either the execution of the transaction as originally agreed or a full refund of the deposited N7.15 billion. It claims that all such demands are unsuccessful, prompting it to seek legal redress.
In its application, FHT Mega Express tells the court that the interim order is necessary to preserve the disputed funds. The company argues that without the order, there is a risk that the funds could be dissipated or moved beyond reach before the court determines the substantive issues in the case.
Justice Hauwa Gummi agrees that the application raises issues deserving of judicial protection. The court holds that maintaining the status quo is necessary to prevent irreparable harm and ensure that justice is not defeated.
The judge emphasises that the interim order does not determine the merits of the case but is meant to safeguard the subject matter of the dispute pending full hearing. She directs all parties to appear on the adjourned date to argue the substantive motion.
The case is expected to further test regulatory oversight, banking obligations in letters of credit transactions, and the role of financial institutions in safeguarding customer deposits amid commercial disputes.
