The UBA Stallion Group debt case has entered its next phase, and it is moving fast. Within hours of a Lagos court handing the bank a sweeping win, Stallion Group went to the Court of Appeal. It wants the judgment frozen while its appeal is heard.
What the court decided
Justice Daniel Osiagor of the Federal High Court in Lagos delivered the judgment on Friday. He granted all the reliefs UBA sought, affirmed the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case, and upheld the appointment of receiver/manager Romeo Ese as valid.
The judge ruled for UBA on every issue put before him. He validated the mortgage arrangements, affirmed the liability of the guarantors, and restrained the defendants from diverting payments due to them from government agencies. That last order matters. It is expected to protect funds payable to the defendants and preserve potential sources of recovery for the bank until the judgment is enforced.
The court also dealt with a challenge from a third party. Barbedos Ventures Limited, the 12th defendant, objected to the mortgage, but the judge dismissed the objection because it had not established any proprietary interest in the property. According to the judgment summary UBA supplied, the company’s consent was therefore not required for the mortgage.
The finding at the centre of the dispute
The most consequential part of the ruling may be what the court said about the debt itself. It observed that the defendants did not dispute that they were indebted to the bank. They challenged the amount claimed. It added that the reconciliation of accounts between the parties did not wipe out the underlying indebtedness.
That sits awkwardly with Stallion’s earlier public position. When the case first became public, Stallion Nigeria Limited called the N156 billion claim entirely false and said the group owed UBA nothing. It also said it had been promised an account reconciliation exercise before the bank went to court. The reconciliation argument, in other words, was a pillar of its defence. The court has now said such an exercise does not erase the debt.
Stallion’s response: appeal and stay of execution
Stallion did not wait. The group says it has appealed the judgment of 16 October 2026 in suit FHC/L/CS/2074/2023, UBA Plc & Ors v. Stallion Nigeria Ltd & Ors. It says it disagrees with the decision “respectfully but firmly”.
Its statement said that, after reviewing the judgment with its legal advisers, it believes there are strong grounds for appellate review and is determined to pursue its rights through the courts. A notice of appeal has been filed at the Court of Appeal, together with a request for a stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. The group also said it will pursue the appeal vigorously and continue to respect the judicial process.
A stay of execution is a request that the court hold off enforcing a judgment until an appeal is decided. Without one, a winning creditor can generally move to enforce straight away. Here, that could mean the receiver/manager taking possession of mortgaged properties and the restraint on government receivables taking full effect.
For Stallion, a stay would buy time and keep its assets and cash flow out of the enforcement process while the appeal runs. For UBA, resisting a stay is about keeping its recovery on track. Nigerian appeals can take a long time, and a bank holding a judgment of this size has little appetite for a long pause.
How the dispute got here
This is not a new quarrel. UBA says it extended credit facilities to Stallion Nigeria Limited in 2014. Sunil Vaswani, described as the alter ego of Stallion, gave a personal guarantee among other securities.
The bank’s account centres on a government vehicle supply contract. UBA alleges that Stallion Motors financed the contract with money from the bank’s credit line. The understanding was that receivables from the Federal Government would be paid into Stallion’s account with UBA. The bank says that after the vehicles were delivered, Stallion directed the government to pay an initial $50 million into a Dubai account instead. UBA also alleges the company continued to divert and dissipate money due under the contract, in breach of the domiciliation agreement. These are UBA’s allegations, not findings of fact.
In October 2023, Justice Aluko ordered UBA to take over the assets of Stallion Nigeria Limited and its subsidiaries in Lagos, Port Harcourt and Kano. Stallion’s lawyers then asked the court to vacate the order and strike out the suit for lack of jurisdiction. Stallion appealed the refusal to set aside the ex parte orders, arguing that the court ignored facts the bank had misrepresented and materials it had concealed.
The case also had its share of drama on the way. In 2024, the then trial judge suspended the reading of two rulings after Stallion’s lawyer wrote to the Chief Judge asking for the case to be transferred. The judge noted that he had already sat on the matter about nine times.
This is not Stallion’s first fight with a lender. In 2020, a GTBank-appointed receiver/manager took possession of Stallion’s assets over a N13 billion judgment debt. That story took a turn. The Court of Appeal later set aside the original order, with Stallion arguing that it did not owe GTBank and had in fact overpaid by about N6.4 billion. In 2023 a Federal High Court judge held that GTBank had contravened court rulings. That history helps explain why Stallion sees real value in appealing.
For now, UBA holds a judgment in its favour and Stallion holds a pending appeal. The Court of Appeal’s handling of the stay request will show which of them has the upper hand in the coming months.
