The tribunal’s mandate that GHL reimburse FirstBank for its arbitration fees within 30 days highlights the bank’s resolute stance in the case and opens the door for more proceedings to recoup the $230 million that is owed to the bank. Today, October 28, 2025, saw the publication of the Final Award in the arbitration between General Hydrocarbons Limited and First Bank of Nigeria Limited, which was brought about by Sole Arbitrator Hon. Justice Kumai Bayang Akaahs. Messrs. Paul Usoro SAN and Abiodun Layonu SAN represented General Hydrocarbons Limited (GHL). Additionally, Messrs. Gbolahan Elias, SAN; Babajide Koku, SAN; and Victor Ogude, SAN, represented First Bank of Nigeria Limited (FBNThe Tribunal rejected GHL’s whole case, stating that FBN’s financing commitments were conditional, concluding that GHL had not violated any laws or been entitled to damages, and directing GHL to pay the arbitration fees. The dispute started with the Subrogation Agreement on May 29, 2021, wherein FBN agreed to provide further loans to finance the development and production of OML 120 in accordance with the terms of the Subrogation Agreement, and GHL agreed to repay an outstanding debt of $718 million. By failing to deliver complete and timely funding, undermining alternative funding efforts, creating losses, including liabilities to third parties, and resulting in lost productive time in the development of OML 120, GHL claimed that FBN had violated the agreement.In accordance with banking rules and regulatory guidelines, FBN contended that its financing commitment was conditional and not absolute, but rather subject to review and expert discretion. The following are the Tribunal’s main conclusions: FBN’s duty to fund the development of OML 120 is conditional rather than absolute. Requests for finance must be reviewed and assessed, and if appropriate, competitive terms may be attached. GHL was unable to demonstrate any violations by FBN. Delays claimed by GHL were not deemed unreasonable or in violation of any laws, and FBN offered multiple finance offers totaling $185 million. FBN did not violate the agreement when it introduced an Independent Asset Manager as a financing need.The claims that FBN was undermining alternative financing arrangements were rejected because they lacked evidence. GHL requested declarations, damages for unpaid contractor fees, losses, and the termination of the Subrogation Agreement, but all of these requests were denied. It was decided that FBN had the right to recoup fair legal and arbitration fees from GHL, which came to $112,100 and ₦111,250,000, respectively. These expenses had to be paid within 30 days, plus interest for late payments.
About The Author
