UK court grants injunction against Nigerian oil trader in $40m debt battle

INTRODUCTION

Between 2022 and 2023, Dubai-based Petrichor Energy FZCO entered into a contract with Ultimate Oil and Gas for the supply of gasoil and Jet-A1 aviation fuel. Ultimate Oil received the cargoes but repeatedly failed to make full and timely payment, leaving Petrichor out of pocket and forcing the company to pursue recovery through simultaneous court and arbitration proceedings.

What began as a straightforward unpaid fuel transaction spiraled into a multi-jurisdictional legal nightmare involving arbitration in Dubai, litigation in London, and criminal proceedings in the UAE. By March 2026, when the present judgment was delivered, approximately $40 million remained unresolved.

THE JUDGMENT: A WORLDWIDE FREEZING ORDER GRANTED

In March 2026, a UK High Court issued a landmark worldwide freezing order against Alhaji Abdulrahman Musa Bashar and his company Ultimate Oil and Gas FZCO, the trading arm of Rahamaniyya group of companies, locking down approximately $40 million in disputed assets across Nigeria, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and France. The order prevents the defendants from selling, transferring, or dealing with any assets globally thus freezing luxury property, vehicles, business interests, and practically everything of value.

The judgment represents a dramatic reversal from an earlier judgment November 2024, when the court had rejected an earlier freezing order application. The court held that mere payment default and dishonored cheques, no matter how egregious, didn’t automatically prove risk of asset dissipation neither was it sufficient grounds for such an extraordinary remedy. But between those two decisions, Bashar’s conduct changed fundamentally, providing the judge with the evidence needed to grant the freeze.

The court found that the totality of evidence: real property sales without debt satisfaction, failure of structured payment agreements, prior contempt convictions, direct threats to hide assets, and undisclosed holdings exceeding $41 million created sufficient risk of dissipation to justify a worldwide freezing order. The court essentially determined that Bashar had proven through his actions that he could not be trusted to comply with voluntary payment obligations or court orders.

The dispute stems from unpaid fuel contracts worth roughly $40 million between 2022 and 2023. Despite a February 2025 judgment against both Bashar personally (owing $32.7 million under a personal guarantee) and Ultimate Oil and Gas (owing $7.5 million), the defendants failed to satisfy the debt. More concerning, Bashar began liquidating assets selling UAE properties worth $3.8 million without applying proceeds to the debt.

A defining moment which turned the case was when Bashar called Petrichor’s managing director and explicitly threatened to dispose of assets if Petrichor refused to accept a further revised payment plan.

A PATTERN OF EVASION AND DISHONESTY

The judge, in issuing the WFO identified four factors that distinguish this judgment from the earlier 2024 rejection.

First, there was now concrete evidence of ongoing asset dissipation, and not mere theoretical risk: the property sales occurred suspiciously close to judgment and during payment agreement negotiations, indicating deliberate asset disipation. Second, enforceable judgments now existed. Bashar wasn’t merely alleged to owe money; he’d been formally judged liable for approximately $40.2 million combined.

Third, there was evidence showing that Bashar had hidden over $41 million in assets, including a Nigerian home valued at $21.3 million, despite claiming poverty. His initial August 2024 disclosure showed $170 million in disclosed assets while claiming inability to pay, a contradiction the court found telling.

Fourth, and the evidence that clinched the freezing order came from a telephone conversation. On March 15, 2026, Bashar called Petrichor’s managing director and insisted that a revised payment offer be accepted. When the managing director demanded a significant payment in March instead, Bashar responded by saying he would “default on payment obligations” and start to “dispose of assets” to make pursuing him impossible.

Adding complexity to recovery efforts is the original fuel cargo gasoil and Jet-A1 remained in storage tanks at the Rahamaniyya Depot in Lagos and Koko Depot in Nigeria. Based on spot market prices, these products could substantially discharge the judgment debt. However, Bashar’s entities have denied Petrichor’s right to resell or access the cargo, effectively blocking the creditor from using the one asset that could satisfy the judgment and likely serving as another delay tactic.

In April 2025, the parties entered a new payment agreement involving structured instalments, with limited grace periods for delayed payments. The court noted that Ultimate had defaulted on multiple instalments despite extensions and partial payments and that Bashar had signed an agreement to be personally liable should Ultimate Oil & Gas default.

Bashar was given three grace periods to cure defaults. He used them all up and still didn’t pay.  By January 2026, Ultimate Oil & Gas ought to have paid 10 instalments totalling 45.7 million dirhams but had paid only 8.7 million, leaving a 37-million-dirham shortfall. Bashar exhausted all three allowed grace periods and still didn’t pay, showing he couldn’t be trusted even under court-supervised payment structures. Bashar’s failure to comply with the terms of the new payment agreement from April 2025, in the court’s opinion, further demonstrated a pattern of evasion.

Furthermore, Bashar’s history compounded the court’s concerns as he was no stranger to court proceedings. In 2020, an England and Wales High Court judge sentenced him to 10 months in prison for contempt of court in a separate Sahara Energy Resources case involving failure to deliver gas. That prior conviction for ignoring judicial orders meant judges would treat fresh claims of non-compliance far more seriously.

CONCLUSION: IMPLICATIONS AND NEXT STEPS

The worldwide freezing order remains in force pending the return date, when Bashar’s legal team is expected to challenge its breadth and necessity. Their likely arguments will focus on contending that the order is overly expansive and unduly disruptive to legitimate business operations and may seek limited carve-outs for ordinary commercial dealings. Even so, given the evidential basis on which the order was granted, the core injunction is likely to withstand scrutiny.

For Petrichor Energy, the ruling marks a significant milestone in a hard-fought three-year enforcement campaign spanning arbitration in Dubai, litigation in London, and criminal proceedings in the United Arab Emirates. Yet the judgment also underscores a familiar reality in commercial disputes: obtaining judgment is only half the battle. Actual recovery, particularly where a debtor has both the incentive and demonstrated willingness to shield assets often presents the greater challenge.

More broadly, this case highlights both the complexity of modern cross-border enforcement. What began as a conventional  trading dispute evolved into a multi-jurisdictional legal contest involving Dubai International Arbitration Centre arbitration, London Court of International Arbitration proceedings, actions before the High Court of England and Wales, litigation in the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts, and parallel criminal enforcement.

The litigation is not yet over. The return date will allow Bashar and Ultimate to contest the order and present their case. For now, however, the court has sent an unmistakable message: where there is compelling evidence that a judgment debtor is seeking to place assets beyond reach, the law will act decisively to ensure that a valid judgment does not become an empty victory.