Owigs and Obigs Nigeria Limited has initiated legal action against Zenith Bank, accusing the institution of what it terms institutional sabotage.
In petitions submitted to the UK Parliament and the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague, Owigs and Obigs is seeking justice over an alleged breach of contract and what it perceives as a miscarriage of commercial justice resulting from a Supreme Court ruling.
The company had entered into an agreement with Zenith Bank in 2018 for the financing of a Letter of Credit. However, it claims the bank failed to issue the Letter of Credit after the contract had been duly signed.
According to the company, this breach led to prolonged legal battles, culminating in a Supreme Court judgment which absolved the bank of any wrongdoing.
Owigs and Obigs has alleged that Zenith Bank colluded with the Supreme Court to undermine a $64 million contract protected under international trade law.
The company maintains that Zenith Bank violated its contractual obligations and criticised the Supreme Court’s ruling, which it describes as a ‘judicial reengineering’ of the original agreement, effectively reconstructing the terms of the contract.
Owigs and Obigs has filed a petition not only to the UK Parliament and the ICC, but also to the International Court of Arbitration in France, citing allegations of judicial corruption, economic sabotage, and severe violations of commercial treaty obligations.
In addition, the company has submitted a formal complaint to the National Judicial Council (NJC), requesting a review of the matter. In a letter signed by the company’s Chairman, Donatus Emeka Okorie, Owigs and Obigs questioned:
“How can an irrevocable Documentary Letter of Credit contract (MT 700) function with the Seller’s bank acting as the Issuing Bank, involving three parties without a Confirming Bank? Or how can it be issued for a contract between the Seller and non-parties, with the Buyer relegated to a third-party role in the Sales Contract?”
The company further stated:
“These rulings by the Supreme Court are unfathomable even to the most advanced fields of computer science or artificial intelligence. Yet, these were the decisions that formed the basis of the destructive judgment against us, which we are now challenging.”
In the case referenced as Appeal No: SC/CV/709/2020, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Zenith Bank (the Seller’s bank), which was identified as the confirming bank in the irrevocable Letter of Credit (Contract No. JYOONL-001/KTTA140415), valued at $64 million. The judgment dismissed claims totalling $42.96 million and ₦3 billion for damages allegedly arising from the disappearance of the company’s funds and failure to meet financial obligations outlined in the agreement.
The disputed transaction is governed by binding international trade laws, including the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 600), which mandates that confirming banks must honour payment once specified conditions are met. The company argues that breaching such standards not only infringes on the rights of exporters but also undermines global confidence in international financial instruments.
Mr Okorie stated that during court proceedings, Zenith Bank admitted under cross-examination that it fully understood the terms of the agreement at the time of signing.
“This is not a standard contract; it is governed by the UCP – a modern framework for international trade. The terms are embedded in coded trade terminologies and interpreted through globally recognised rules, namely the INCOTERMS 2010 revision, which this particular contract was subject to.
“When questioned during cross-examination, Zenith Bank confirmed they understood and had carefully read the agreement before signing it.”
He added that the ruling not only jeopardised the company’s global operations but also damaged the reputation of Nigerian businesses in the international trading community.
The Company urged the NJC to take swift action, adding that the outcome of its petition would determine whether the company would escalate the matter to the ECOWAS Court, the United Nations, and other global bodies. It seeks to compel Zenith Bank to explain how it obtained a favourable judgment based on what it claims were false premises—such as acting as the Issuing Bank while being the Seller’s Bank, issuing a three-party Letter of Credit without a Confirming Bank, and evading accountability for an alleged breach of contract.