Parallex Bank Limited has framed its legal response to a ₦7.15 billion lawsuit as a defining test of judicial discipline in high-stakes commercial disputes, urging the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, to strike out the action on grounds that it represents a calculated misuse of the judicial process.
In filings before the court, the bank described as a new-generation financial institution argues that the suit instituted by logistics company FHT Mega Express Limited is not only procedurally defective but also emblematic of forum shopping and litigation tactics designed to obstruct an already pending debt recovery case.
Court records indicate that the controversy did not originate in Abuja. On September 4, 2025, Parallex Bank commenced an action at the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division (Suit No: FHC/L/CS/1774/2025), seeking to recover an alleged ₦4.5 billion outstanding indebtedness from FHT Mega Express. The bank maintains that the liability arose from multiple Letters of Credit issued to finance import transactions denominated in several million euros.
YOU CAN ALSO READ: CIBN Honours Parallex Bank Chairman
On October 14, 2025, Justice Lewis Allagoa of the Federal High Court ordered all parties to maintain the status quo pending determination of the substantive suit, an order that remains subsisting.
Rather than contest the claim within the Federal High Court, Parallex Bank contends that FHT Mega Express embarked on a series of parallel court actions. According to the bank, the logistics firm initially approached the Lagos State High Court (Suit No: LD/ADR/6143/2025), seeking, among other reliefs, ex-parte orders to freeze the bank’s funds.
That application was reportedly declined, with the court directing that the bank be put on notice. Parallex Bank subsequently challenged the Lagos State action as an abuse of process, citing the earlier Federal High Court suit. Shortly thereafter, FHT Mega Express discontinued the Lagos State case.
Barely days after withdrawing the Lagos action, FHT Mega Express filed a fresh suit at the FCT High Court, Abuja, again accompanied by an ex-parte application seeking interim reliefs against the bank. Parallex Bank alleges that the Abuja court was not informed of key facts, including the existence of the Federal High Court proceedings in Lagos, the subsisting status quo order, and the failed attempt to secure similar reliefs in Lagos State.
The bank argues that this alleged non-disclosure led the Abuja court to grant interim orders that would otherwise not have been made if full disclosure had occurred.
In its Notice of Preliminary Objection, Parallex Bank asserts that the Abuja suit is an impermissible attempt to re-litigate issues already before a court of competent jurisdiction. The bank characterises the action as vexatious and designed to harass, intimidate, and derail lawful debt recovery efforts through multiplicity of proceedings.
Central to the objection is the argument that disputes arising from Letters of Credit and banking obligations fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court and are already being adjudicated in Lagos.
An affidavit sworn by Cynthia Akunaeziri, a manager at Parallex Bank, outlines the commercial background of the transaction, detailing the scale of the credit facilities extended and the bank’s claim to enforce its banker’s lien over goods financed through the Letters of Credit.
YOU CAN ALSO READ: Dr. Olufemi Bakre: A Transformational Leader at the Helm of Parallex Bank
The affidavit further notes that when the Lagos State High Court struck out the earlier suit, it reportedly directed FHT Mega Express to undertake corrective publications to counter alleged adverse public information previously circulated against the bank.
Parallex Bank insists that the Abuja action was instituted primarily to obtain interim orders earlier refused by another court and to stall proceedings already before the Federal High Court. The FCT High Court has adjourned the matter to February 4, 2026, for hearing of the bank’s objection seeking dismissal of the suit in its entirety.
Beyond the immediate parties, legal observers note that the case underscores broader concerns within Nigeria’s commercial litigation landscape, particularly the tension between aggressive interim reliefs, judicial comity, and the growing scrutiny of ex-parte applications in high-value financial disputes.
