By Emeka Amaefula
FEDERAL HIGH COURT OR STATE HIGH COURT?
Questions Trail ₦1.4 Billion Judgment in Polaris Bank–Paulazanda Dispute
When the dispute between Polaris Bank Plc and Paulazanda Nigeria Limited, a Port Harcourt–based importer of goods and services, first erupted, few imagined it would snowball into one of the most controversial financial litigations in Rivers State this year. What began as a foreign-exchange transaction involving the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has since raised fundamental legal questions bordering on jurisdiction, procedure, enforcement and the speed with which justice was dispensed.
At the centre of the controversy is Mr. Ernest Amadi, the principal of Paulazanda Nigeria Limited, who has emerged as both a claimant and, according to petitions sighted by this newspaper, a subject of serious allegations in a matter now laden with counterclaims and procedural uncertainty.
Industry sources familiar with the dispute say the transaction in question arose from the importation of goods under a CBN-regulated foreign-exchange framework. Under Nigerian law, and as repeatedly affirmed by appellate courts, disputes involving banking operations, foreign-exchange allocations and transactions supervised by the CBN fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.
Despite this well-established legal position, the suit was instituted and determined at the Rivers State High Court, Port Harcourt Judicial Division, with Hon. Justice Alatuwo E. Fubara presiding. This development has triggered intense debate among legal analysts, many of whom argue that the court lacked the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the matter ab initio.
“Any dispute arising from a financial transaction regulated by the CBN ought to be heard by the Federal High Court. The Rivers State High Court does not have jurisdiction in such matters,” a senior lawyer conversant with the case told our correspondent.
Nevertheless, the suit, marked PHC/1856/CS/2025, proceeded with what observers have described as unusual speed. Legal practitioners who followed the proceedings expressed surprise at how swiftly the case moved from filing to judgment. Ordinarily, banking-related litigations of this nature pass through several procedural stages, including the exchange of pleadings, preliminary objections, jurisdictional hearings, discovery of documents and a full trial on the merits. In this instance, however, these stages appeared either compressed or expedited.
One lawyer described the process as “a sprint in a race that typically takes months, sometimes years, especially at the Federal High Court.”
Controversy deepened with the rapid enforcement of the ₦1.4 billion judgment. Members of the legal community questioned how the judgment sum was computed so quickly and why a writ of execution was issued almost immediately, leaving Polaris Bank’s legal team with little or no breathing space to exhaust available legal remedies.
“Due diligence requires time. The speed with which this judgment was executed raises serious procedural concerns,” another practitioner remarked.
As the legal tension escalated, more troubling allegations emerged. Documents reviewed by this newspaper indicate that Polaris Bank, on November 26, 2025, petitioned the Rivers State Commissioner of Police, CP Olugbenga Adepoju, alleging that Mr. Ernest Amadi was mobilising hoodlums and other third parties to enforce the judgment outside the bounds of lawful procedure.
The petition, titled “Plot to Cause Massive Unrest, Disturbance of Peace, and Disruption of Business Activities at Polaris Bank Ltd Branches by One Mr. Ernest Amadi Carrying Out Business in the Name of Paulazanda Nig Ltd,” was also copied to the Department of State Services (DSS) and the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC). The bank warned of a possible attack on its branches and an imminent breach of public peace in Rivers State. Security sources confirmed that preliminary surveillance had commenced in response to the allegations.
In line with ethical journalism, this newspaper made formal written inquiries to Mr. Amadi, seeking clarification on the current status of the ₦1.4 billion judgment now before the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division, his response to allegations of engaging non-state actors to enforce the judgment, and his position on the jurisdictional issues raised by legal experts.
Our email specifically requested: “Kindly brief us on the current state of the execution of the ₦1.4B judgment and the ongoing appeal. We also request your response to allegations that you engaged third parties to disrupt the operations of Polaris Bank.”
As of the time of filing this report, Paulazanda Nig Ltd responded through one Thomas Ossai thus
“Thank you for reaching out to us on this matter. However, for the benefit of balance reportage, its important we give our own side of the matter.
In 2019, our company- Paulazanda Nigeria Limited open a Form M and Letter of Credit valued at $1,050,000 for the importation of manufacturing equipment from an Indian Company. Polaris Bank then appointed FBN Uk Ltd as the Correspondent Bank and the transaction moved on smoothly until FBN Uk Ltd pull out and a new correspondent bank – Banque Libano Francaise of Lebanon was appointed.
With the appointment of Banque Libano Francaise came numerous complain of excess charge by the Indian Supplier. Following the incessant complaint about excess charges, we wrote to Polaris Bank on 20th March, 2023 and 5th June 2023 relaying the complaints to them. At a point, 20- 34% of a particular shipment was paid as charges by the supplier and so we wrote to Polaris bank instructing them of our intention to bear the cost of all charges related to the letter of credit bank via a letter dated 22nd June, 2023 in order to ensure amicable conclusion of the transaction.
“Despite our efforts to pacify the supplier, they refused to continue with the transaction even when the sum of $863,088 was unutilized in the Letter of Credit. So, with this development, we sought for a new supplier in China and proceeded to open a new Form M and Letter of Credit with Polaris Bank and requested them to transfer the balance of $863,088 into the new Letter of Credit which was rejected by Polaris Bank based on flimsy excuse that they will repurchase the Dollar and return the Naira equivalent. It must be noted that the actions and inactions of Polaris Bank was responsible for the pulling out of the Indian supplier from the transaction and this is causing us huge loss as we will spend more to import the same manufacturing line from China.
“So, on the 25th April, 2025 an inflow of N296,253,008 was received in our bank account which Polaris bank claimed was the Naira equivalent of $863,008. Its as a result of the unjust, immoral and illogical action of Polaris Bank that necessitated our going to court of law to seek for justice which was eventually granted in our favour on the 4th November, 2025 and instead of the bank to seek ways to obey the court judgement they have resorted to media propaganda.
“It’s also important to note that it is still the same Steel mill production line and hence, the HS Codes of the Form Ms are the same and we never requested them to give us the $863,008 in cash or to transfer it another of our account which would have amounted to suspicion but in this case our request was for Polaris Bank to transfer the $863,008 to the new Letter of Credit while we source for the balance to make up the LC amount.
“Furthermore, our factory has a production space of 50,000 square meters with the capacity to create over 1000 direct and indirect employment for the teeming youths and thereby contributing to the growth of Nigeria’s GDP but unfortunately Polaris bank have decided to become a stumbling block to our aspiration to contribute to the growth of Nigeria economy.
“Finally, Nigeria is dire need of investment and the cardinal economic agenda of the government of President Tinubu is to grow the nation’s GDP to one trillion Dollar by 2030 and sadly actions of Polaris Bank send wrong signals to investors and undermines the economic agenda of President Tinubu’s government.”
Stating further, Mr Thomas Ossai wrote:
“Kindly oblige the following:
1. The current procedural status of the matter at the Court of Appeal, particularly as it relates to the ₦1.4 billion judgment entered in favour of Paulazanda Nigeria Ltd.
Polaris Bank have filed an appeal dated 25th November, 2025 and we have been served a copy of the appeal.
2. Whether any application for Stay of Execution has been filed, heard, or granted in respect of the judgment of the lower court, and the present position of that application, if any.
Stay of Execution has not been filed, neither has it been granted.
3. Your official position or clarification regarding the proceedings presently before the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Judicial Division, including any pending motions or interlocutory steps taken by either party.
Our official position is that we shall meet Polaris Bank at the Court of Appeal.
Furthermore, credible allegations have been raised suggesting that you are facilitating or engaging third parties to interfere with, obstruct, or disrupt the operations of Polaris Bank branches within Rivers State. In the interest of accuracy, balance, and fair reportage, kindly provide your formal response to this allegation.
This is to a false flag by Polaris Bank and we wish to request that you kindly avail us the evidence of the “credible allegations have been raised suggesting that you are facilitating or engaging third parties to interfere with, obstruct, or disrupt the operations of Polaris Bank branches within Rivers State” which you are privy to.
“Furthermore, its on record that Polaris Bank obstructed Court Officials from carrying out their lawful duties of execution of the Court Judgement on the 5th November, 2025 and even went as far as calling the men of Nigeria Police to stop the enforcement of lawful order of the court.
Best Regards
Thomas Ossai”
For: PAULAZANDA NIGERIA LIMITED
The crux of the legal controversy remains whether the Rivers State High Court was the proper forum to adjudicate a dispute rooted in CBN-regulated foreign-exchange transactions. Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Federal High Court over matters relating to banking, foreign exchange, monetary policy and issues involving the Central Bank of Nigeria.
Should the Court of Appeal find that the trial court acted without jurisdiction, the entire ₦1.4 billion judgment could be declared a nullity.
With the appeal pending and security agencies keeping watch over allegations of planned disruptions, the case has evolved beyond a routine commercial disagreement. For Polaris Bank, the battle is now both legal and operational. For Paulazanda Nigeria Limited, the judgment remains in suspense until the appellate court either upholds or overturns it. For the wider legal community, the case has become a litmus test for jurisdictional discipline, procedural fairness and the integrity of judgment enforcement in Nigeria.
As proceedings continue, one question lingers: if the dispute centred on a CBN-regulated transaction, why did Paulazanda Nigeria Limited not join the Central Bank of Nigeria as a defendant in the suit?
—–Emeka Amaefula —–+234(0)8111813069—
