Details of how EFCC detained Plural Oil CEO Tunde Oyefolu over alleged ₦3.17bn and $835,486 Debt has emerged.
KeepLoss reports that the dispute between Providus Bank and Plural Oil Marketing Limited has intensified as the company’s Managing Director, Mr. Tunde Oyefolu, was detained by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over an alleged indebtedness of ₦3.17 billion and $835,486.76.
Oyefolu’s detention followed a petition filed by Providus Bank and an ex-parte order secured from the Federal High Court in Lagos, authorising the freezing of all bank accounts linked to Plural Oil and its directors. The order, granted by Justice Akintayo Aluko in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/2015/2025, enabled multiple banks to immediately block the accounts.
But in a fresh Motion on Notice, Plural Oil and its directors are asking the court to set aside the order, describing both the EFCC-led detention and the asset freeze as unlawful, unconstitutional, and a violation of their right to fair hearing.
Represented by their counsel, Dr. Sulaiman Usman (SAN), the applicants argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because the order was issued before they were served with any originating processes. They cited the order’s own directive instructing Providus Bank to effect substituted service as proof that due process had not been followed.
The company said it only became aware of the order on October 9, 2025, after banks began forwarding compliance notices. They described the situation as “a classic violation of Section 36 of the Constitution,” which guarantees the right to be heard before adverse judicial action.
Plural Oil further accused Providus Bank of withholding key facts when applying for the order. According to them, the bank failed to disclose that:
-
The company had already repaid ₦891,036,000 toward the disputed facility.
-
Plural Oil had formally requested reconciliation and restructuring on the same day Providus Bank filed its application.
The applicants also revealed that the bank had previously petitioned the EFCC, resulting in Oyefolu’s seven-day detention under harsh conditions, despite the matter being purely civil. They said the detention disrupted the MD’s ongoing medical treatments for cardiac and neurological conditions.
Plural Oil described the freezing directive as excessively broad, affecting every account linked to the BVNs of its directors including accounts owned by third parties unrelated to the business. They labelled this “judicial overreach” and a violation of Section 44 of the Constitution, which guards against unlawful deprivation of property.
Responding to claims that the company diverted Base Oil financed through Letters of Credit, Plural Oil denied any wrongdoing. It said all products were sold legitimately and proceeds remitted to Providus Bank, noting that both parties participated in reconciliation and restructuring discussions between 2021 and 2023.
The company warned that the prolonged account freeze has crippled operations, halted payments to employees and contractors, stalled transactions, and caused irreparable financial harm.
Plural Oil is urging the court to vacate the ex-parte order ex debito justitiae as a matter of justice and restore full access to all accounts. It is also seeking costs against Providus Bank for allegedly abusing ex-parte proceedings to gain an unfair commercial advantage.
The case has been adjourned to December 22, 2025, for hearing of the substantive application. Legal analysts say the ruling could set a major precedent regarding the boundaries of ex-parte orders in commercial banking disputes.
