What Is the Mareva Injunction in Nigeria? Freezing Orders, Ex Parte Practice and Cross‑border Assets

Understanding what is the Mareva injunction in Nigeria is essential for any creditor, in‑house counsel or external litigator who faces the risk that a debtor will move assets beyond the court’s reach before a judgment can be enforced. The Mareva injunction, also called a freezing order, is an interlocutory court order that restrains a defendant from disposing of, dealing with or dissipating assets while proceedings are pending. It takes its name from the landmark English decision in Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulk Carriers SA [1975], and Nigerian courts have adopted and refined the doctrine through decades of case law.

This guide sets out the evidential test, the ex parte procedure, practical steps for freezing bank accounts and fintech wallets, cross‑border enforcement strategy, and a respondent’s defence playbook, giving both applicants and respondents the actionable checklist they need.

What Is a Mareva Injunction in Nigeria? Definition and At‑a‑Glance Test

A Mareva injunction in Nigeria is an interlocutory order of court that prevents a defendant, against whom a claimant has a good arguable claim, from removing, dissipating or otherwise dealing with assets, so that those assets remain available to satisfy any judgment the court may ultimately give. The doctrine operates to stop a defendant from frustrating the administration of justice by stripping away the very assets a successful claimant would need to enforce against.

Nigerian courts have consistently affirmed that a Mareva order is a court order, specifically, a species of interlocutory injunction granted in the exercise of equitable jurisdiction. It does not determine the substantive rights of the parties; it merely preserves the status quo pending trial or pending payment to the claimant.

At a glance, three conditions the applicant must satisfy:

• Good arguable case. The claimant must demonstrate a cause of action against the defendant with a reasonable prospect of success.
• Real risk of dissipation. There must be evidence that the defendant is likely to remove assets from the jurisdiction or dissipate them to frustrate enforcement.
• Assets to be preserved. Identifiable assets must exist within (or, in some cases, outside) the jurisdiction that the order can bite on.

When Is a Mareva (Freezing) Injunction Granted? The Evidential Test

The conditions for granting a Mareva injunction in Nigeria reflect a rigorous evidential standard designed to balance the claimant’s need for asset preservation against the defendant’s right not to be unjustly restrained before judgment. Nigerian appellate courts have repeatedly confirmed that the three‑part test outlined above must be satisfied to a high degree of persuasion, particularly when the application is made without notice.

The Three Limbs in Practice

Good arguable case. The applicant must place before the court sufficient material, contracts, correspondence, invoices, admissions or other documentary evidence, to show that the underlying claim is more than speculative. This does not require proof on the balance of probabilities; the threshold is lower, but the claim must be credible and supported by primary documents.

Real risk of dissipation or removal. This is the heart of any freezing order application. The court will not grant a Mareva order on the mere say‑so of the applicant. There must be concrete evidence, or at least strong inferences drawn from established facts, that the defendant is taking steps, or is likely to take steps, to move or hide assets. Industry observers note that Nigerian courts have grown increasingly stringent in demanding hard evidence of dissipation rather than generalised allegations of dishonesty.

Identifiable assets. The applicant should identify, as precisely as possible, the assets to be frozen: bank accounts (with account numbers and institutions), real property (with title particulars), shareholdings, vehicles and other traceable assets. A freezing order in Nigeria cannot operate in a vacuum; the court needs to know what it is freezing.

Affidavit Evidence Checklist

Every Mareva application is supported by affidavit evidence. The following checklist reflects the documents Nigerian courts routinely expect to see attached as exhibits:

• Statement of the applicant’s cause of action, the contract, invoice or transaction giving rise to the claim.
• Evidence of the quantum claimed, invoices, debit notes, statements of account or expert valuations.
• Evidence of dissipation risk, bank statements showing unusual outflows, corporate restructuring documents, share transfer filings or correspondence indicating planned asset movements.
• Identification of assets, bank account details (name, number, institution), property title references, vehicle registration details and share certificates.
• Evidence of urgency, any correspondence or intelligence indicating that delay will render the order futile.
• Undertaking as to damages, a clear, unequivocal undertaking by the applicant to compensate the respondent for loss if the order is later found to have been wrongly granted.

What Counts as “Real Risk”, Indicators and Red Flags

Nigerian courts look for objective indicators rather than subjective suspicion. The following red flags, drawn from practitioner experience and judicial commentary, frequently support a finding of real risk:

• Large or unusual transfers from operating accounts to personal accounts or offshore entities shortly after a dispute arises.
• Corporate restructuring, transferring assets to newly incorporated special‑purpose vehicles or related‑party entities.
• Attempted sale or encumbrance of real property after receipt of a letter of demand.
• History of default on court orders or a pattern of non‑compliance with regulatory directives.
• Evidence that the respondent has commenced winding‑up proceedings or is stripping a company of its assets ahead of liquidation.

Ex Parte Practice for Freezing Orders in Nigeria: Procedure, Undertakings and Security

Many Mareva applications in Nigeria are filed ex parte, that is, without notice to the respondent. The very purpose of the order would be defeated if the respondent were warned in advance and given time to spirit assets away. An ex parte injunction in Nigeria places heightened obligations on the applicant precisely because the respondent has no opportunity to be heard before the order is made.

Step‑by‑Step Ex Parte Procedure

1. File the originating process, the writ of summons or originating motion, together with the substantive claim and the motion for the Mareva order.
2. Draft the motion on notice (or ex parte motion), supported by a detailed affidavit setting out the three‑part test, exhibits and the applicant’s undertaking as to damages.
3. Urgency letter to the court, explain why the matter is time‑sensitive and why notice to the respondent would render the application nugatory.
4. Hearing before a judge in chambers, the judge considers the affidavit, the exhibits and the applicant’s undertaking. If satisfied, the court makes the order, typically returnable within a short period (commonly seven to fourteen days) for an inter partes hearing.
5. Serve the order on banks, registries and the respondent, ensure immediate service on all third parties holding assets, and personal service on the respondent before the return date.

Duty of Disclosure, Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

The applicant owes the court a duty of full and frank disclosure of all material facts, including facts unfavourable to the applicant’s case. Failure to comply is one of the most common grounds on which Mareva orders are subsequently set aside. Common pitfalls include:

• Omitting the respondent’s defence or any correspondence in which the respondent disputes the claim.
• Exaggerating the quantum of the claim or the value of the assets at risk.
• Failing to disclose parallel proceedings, settlement negotiations or the existence of other security for the debt.
• Presenting facts selectively to create a misleading impression of urgency or dishonesty.

Courts treat non‑disclosure seriously. An order obtained by material non‑disclosure may be discharged with indemnity costs, and in egregious cases the applicant may face contempt proceedings.

Practical Steps to Freeze Bank Accounts and Fintech Assets in Nigeria

Once a freezing order has been granted, the practical challenge is ensuring that banks and payment platforms comply swiftly. A Mareva order that is not promptly served on the relevant financial institution is worthless, funds can be moved in minutes. The following operational checklist reflects the steps practitioners routinely follow when executing a freezing order in Nigeria.

Working with Investigators and Bank Notices, Operational Checklist

1. Identify all accounts. Before filing, use pre‑action disclosure applications, tracing agents or forensic accountants to identify the respondent’s accounts across commercial banks and fintech platforms.
2. Prepare certified copies of the order. Obtain multiple sealed copies from the court registry, one for each institution, plus copies for the respondent and the court file.
3. Serve on the institution’s legal/compliance department. Deliver the sealed order directly to the bank’s head‑office legal or compliance team, not merely to a branch. For fintech platforms, serve on the registered office and the designated compliance officer.
4. Confirm receipt in writing. Obtain a written acknowledgement from the institution confirming receipt and the accounts affected.
5. Follow up within 24–48 hours. Verify that the freeze has been applied operationally. Request a confirmation letter or screen print showing that debits are blocked.

For SWIFT transfers already in transit, practitioners should instruct the bank immediately to place a hold on outgoing international payments. Preserving the SWIFT trail is critical for any subsequent cross‑border tracing exercise.

Cross‑Border Assets and Enforcement: Strategy and Enforcement Traps

Many commercial disputes in Nigeria involve assets held abroad, in the United Kingdom, the United States, the United Arab Emirates or other jurisdictions where Nigerian businesses maintain accounts, property or investments. A freezing order in Nigeria may expressly cover worldwide assets, but enforcement abroad requires separate proceedings in the foreign court.

When to Seek a Worldwide Freezing Order

A worldwide Mareva order restrains the respondent from dealing with assets anywhere in the world, not just those within Nigeria. Nigerian courts have the jurisdiction to make such orders, though they do so cautiously and typically require stronger evidence of dissipation risk and a larger quantum claim. The applicant should be prepared to provide an undertaking not to enforce the order abroad without the Nigerian court’s permission, a standard safeguard against oppressive multi‑jurisdictional freezing.

Model Jurisdiction Sequence

Industry observers recommend a staged enforcement approach when assets span multiple countries:

1. Obtain the Nigerian order first, this establishes the evidential foundation and provides a domestically enforceable freeze.
2. Apply in the foreign jurisdiction, present the Nigerian order, affidavit evidence and any letters of request to the foreign court. In the UK, this typically involves an application under Part 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules; in the US, it may involve a motion for a temporary restraining order under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3. Coordinate with foreign counsel, instruct local counsel in the foreign jurisdiction before filing in Nigeria, so that the foreign application can be issued within hours of the Nigerian order.

When to Involve Mutual Legal Assistance or Foreign Counsel

Where assets are in jurisdictions with mutual legal assistance treaties or reciprocal enforcement arrangements, the applicant’s legal team should consider issuing a letter of request through the Nigerian court to the foreign court. This formal channel, while slower, carries greater weight in some civil‑law jurisdictions than a private‑party application. For common‑law jurisdictions like the UK, a direct application is usually faster and more effective.

The practical risks of cross‑border enforcement include conflicting injunctions (where the foreign court modifies or refuses to recognise the Nigerian order), significant additional legal costs, and the possibility that the respondent will use jurisdictional challenges to delay enforcement. Early coordination with experienced cross‑border dispute resolution counsel is essential to avoid these traps.

Defending a Mareva Application: The Respondent’s Playbook

Respondents who discover that a Mareva order has been made against them must act immediately. Delay is the respondent’s worst enemy, the longer an unjustified freeze remains in place, the greater the commercial damage to the respondent’s business.

Immediate Steps for Respondents

• Obtain a copy of the order and all supporting affidavits. Review every exhibit for accuracy, completeness and any sign of material non‑disclosure.
• File an application to vary or set aside. If the applicant has failed in the duty of full and frank disclosure, the respondent should apply to discharge the order on that ground alone, Nigerian courts treat non‑disclosure as a serious matter.
• Cross‑examine on the affidavit evidence. Request leave to cross‑examine the applicant’s deponent, particularly where the evidence of dissipation risk is thin or speculative.
• Offer alternative security. A respondent who can provide a bank guarantee, escrow arrangement or other security equivalent to the amount claimed may persuade the court to discharge or vary the Mareva order in favour of less restrictive relief.
• Challenge the undertaking as to damages. If the applicant lacks the financial means to honour the undertaking, the respondent should argue that the order should not stand without adequate security from the applicant.

Emergency Defences and Protective Cross‑Applications

Where the freeze is causing acute commercial harm, for example, preventing the respondent from paying employees, suppliers or tax obligations, the respondent may apply on an urgent basis for a variation permitting ordinary‑course payments. Nigerian courts are generally receptive to such applications, provided the respondent can demonstrate that the payments are genuine, necessary and do not constitute dissipation.

Comparison Table: Mareva Injunction vs Garnishee Order vs Anton Piller Order

Nigerian practitioners frequently need to distinguish between three powerful but fundamentally different remedies. The table below summarises the key differences between a Mareva injunction, a garnishee order and an Anton Piller order, each serves a distinct purpose at a different stage of litigation.

The critical distinction between a garnishee order and a Mareva injunction is timing: a garnishee order is a post‑judgment enforcement tool, whereas a Mareva order is a pre‑judgment or mid‑proceeding preservation tool. A Mareva order does not give the applicant any priority over other creditors; it simply prevents the defendant from making enforcement impossible.

Timeline, Costs and Likely Outcomes for Freezing Orders in Nigeria

The timeline and cost of obtaining a Mareva order vary significantly depending on the complexity of the case, the number of respondents, whether cross‑border assets are involved and the specific court handling the application.

Typical timeline for an ex parte application:

• Filing to hearing: 1–5 business days (urgent applications can be heard on the day of filing).
• Return date (inter partes hearing): 7–14 days after the ex parte order.
• Full determination of the application: 2–8 weeks, depending on adjournments and the complexity of the respondent’s opposition.

Estimated cost bands:

• Straightforward domestic application: Professional fees typically range from ₦1.5 million to ₦5 million, plus court filing fees and process‑server costs.
• Complex multi‑party or cross‑border application: Professional fees can exceed ₦10 million, particularly where foreign counsel must be instructed and multiple bank notifications are required.
• Security / undertaking as to damages: The applicant may be required to provide security (a bond or bank guarantee), this cost varies and can be substantial in high‑value claims.

Early indications suggest that courts are increasingly requiring applicants to demonstrate the financial capacity to honour the undertaking as to damages, adding a practical cost layer that applicants must budget for at the outset.

Key Mareva Injunction Cases (2021–2026) and Practical Takeaways

Recent Nigerian appellate and first‑instance decisions have refined the practical requirements for Mareva applications. The following case summaries highlight the key developments that practitioners should be aware of.

Court of Appeal, Revisiting Mareva Principles (2021). The Nigerian Court of Appeal revisited the foundational principles for granting Mareva injunctions, emphasising that the applicant must demonstrate a “good arguable case”, not merely a prima facie case, and that the risk of dissipation must be supported by solid evidence rather than bare assertions. The practical takeaway is that courts expect a higher standard of documentary proof at the ex parte stage than many applicants have historically provided.

Akintola Olusegun Adekunle v Gmunu Limited & Ors (NICNADR). The tribunal confirmed that a Mareva or freezing injunction is granted when there is evidence that the debtor is acting in a manner likely to frustrate a subsequent order of the court. The decision underscored that the doctrine operates to restrain a defendant against whom a claimant has a good arguable claim from disposing of or dissipating assets pending the determination of the case.

Aso Savings & Loans Plc v Mercury Resources Ltd & Anor (FCT High Court, 2025). The FCT High Court granted a Mareva injunction restraining the defendant from dealing with or alienating assets, including by assignment, transfer or creation of third‑party interests. The order illustrates the broad scope that Nigerian courts are prepared to give freezing orders when the evidence of dissipation risk is compelling, and it provides a useful template for the wording of modern Nigerian Mareva orders.

The likely practical effect of these decisions is a continued tightening of disclosure standards. Applicants should ensure that their affidavits are meticulously prepared, fully and frankly disclose all material facts, and attach contemporaneous documentary evidence of dissipation risk.

Conclusion: What Applicants and Respondents Must Do Now

The Mareva injunction remains one of the most powerful tools available to creditors and claimants in Nigerian commercial litigation. Whether you are an applicant seeking to preserve assets or a respondent defending against a freeze, understanding what is the Mareva injunction in Nigeria, and how courts apply the evidential test in practice, is the starting point for effective action.

Applicant checklist:

• Gather documentary evidence of the claim and dissipation risk before filing.
• Identify all assets, bank accounts, property, fintech wallets, with precision.
• Prepare a full and frank affidavit, disclosing unfavourable facts.
• Serve the order on banks and third parties within hours of the court granting it.

Respondent checklist:

• Review the order and supporting affidavits immediately upon service.
• Identify any material non‑disclosure and prepare a setting‑aside application.
• Offer alternative security where possible to unlock frozen accounts.
• Seek urgent variation to permit ordinary‑course business payments.

For expert guidance on obtaining or defending freezing orders in Nigeria, consult a qualified dispute resolution lawyer in Nigeria through Global Law Experts.

Sources

1. FCT High Court, Aso Savings & Loans Plc v Mercury Resources Ltd & Anor (Mareva Injunction Order)
2. NICNADR, Akintola Olusegun Adekunle v Gmunu Limited & Ors
3. Conflict of Laws .net, Nigerian Court of Appeal Revisits Mareva Injunction Principles (2021)
4. Nigerian Law Guru, Mareva Injunction as a Tool for Debt Recovery
5. Nigerian Journals Online, Appraisal of Mareva Injunction as an Equitable Preemptive Remedy
6. AAA Chambers, Mareva Injunction: Meaning, Origin and Application in Nigeria
7. SSRN, The Role of Mareva Injunction in Strengthening Debt Recovery (Eze)