Court Stays Execution of Judgment Appointing AMNI Administrator Pending Appeal

Wale Igbintade

A Federal High Court in Lagos has granted an order staying the execution of its earlier judgment in a suit filed by Cenroc FPSO Solutions Nigeria Ltd against AMNI International Petroleum Development Company Ltd.

Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke granted the order while ruling on a motion for stay of execution of the judgment delivered on February 13, 2026, in suit No. FHC/L/L/CS/1454/2025.

The plaintiff’s action arose from a commercial relationship and contractual engagements with AMNI.

Cenroc had approached the court through an administration application filed on July 23, 2025, seeking, among other reliefs, a declaration that AMNI was unable to pay its outstanding debt.

The company also sought an order appointing Mr. Sam Aiboni as administrator over AMNI’s affairs.

On February 13, Justice Aneke granted the reliefs sought and appointed Sam Aiboni as administrator of the defendant company.

Dissatisfied with the judgment and the order appointing an administrator, AMNI filed a notice of appeal challenging both decisions.

The company also applied for a stay of execution pending the determination of the appeal.

In his ruling on Thursday, Justice Aneke held that the applicant had established sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of a stay.

“Having carefully considered the materials placed before this court, especially Exhibit AO1 attached to the affidavit in support of the application, it is my view that the defendant/applicant has made out a case for the grant of the application for stay of execution of the judgment delivered on February 13, 2026, and I so hold,” the judge said.

Meanwhile, the judge clarified the distinction between an administrator and a receiver under the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020, stressing that the court’s earlier order related strictly to administration and not receivership.

He noted that in a receivership, a receiver acts as an agent accountable only to the appointing creditor, who also bears liability for the receiver’s default.

The receiver realises assets, applies proceeds to the secured debt, and remits any surplus to the company.

Justice Aneke observed that over time, the receivership framework proved inadequate due to the lack of stakeholder balance and absence of a moratorium against other creditors, often leading to parallel enforcement actions and asset dissipation.

He explained that CAMA 2020 introduced corporate rescue mechanisms modelled after the English administration regime under Part 18 of the Act, making administration a structured statutory mechanism aimed at rescuing distressed but viable companies.

He referred to Section 444 of CAMA 2020, which outlines the objectives of administration proceedings.
Consequently, the court granted the defendant’s application for stay of execution pending the determination of the appeal.