High-Stakes Banking Feud: Lagos Court Summons 16 Stanbic IBTC Executives Over Alleged Contempt in N806 Million GTBank Dispute

Justice Dipeolu orders 16 Stanbic IBTC officials to appear in court over alleged disobedience in a GTBank dispute. Read about the N806m conflict.

By: AXL Media

Published: Apr 2, 2026, 7:08 AM EDT

Source: The information in this article was sourced from Naija News

Judicial Mandate: Senior Bankers Face Committal Proceedings

In a significant escalation of a legal battle between two of Nigeria’s banking giants, Justice Dehinde Dipeolu has mandated the physical appearance of 16 senior executives of Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc. The order, delivered on Wednesday, April 1, 2026, at the Federal High Court in Ikoyi, stems from Suit No: FHC/L/CS/1738/2024. The court is seeking to determine if these officials—including high-ranking names such as Yinka Sanni, Wole Adeniyi, and Olubunmi Dayo-Olagunju—should be committed to a correctional facility for "willful disobedience" of subsisting judicial orders regarding the preservation of funds.

The N806 Million Dispute and Allegations of Fact Suppression

The conflict traces back to October 25, 2024, when the court issued preservative orders restraining defendants in a case filed by GTBank against GY Farmers Ltd from dissipating funds totaling ₦806,393,894.38. GTBank alleges that Stanbic IBTC played a deceptive role in these proceedings. According to court filings, Stanbic IBTC filed an affidavit in November 2024 claiming one of the accounts in question was "unfunded." However, GTBank contends the bank had previously acknowledged a lien on that same account, which allegedly held over R8.7 million (South African Rand) at the material time.

"Lifting the Corporate Veil": Personal Liability for Executives

A critical component of GTBank's motion is the request for the court to "lift the corporate veil" of Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc. This legal maneuver aims to move past the bank’s corporate identity to hold its principal officers personally and criminally liable for the alleged contempt. Counsel for the plaintiff, A.B. Ogunba, SAN, argued that statutory notices (Forms 48 and 49) had been duly served, and the executives must now "show cause" as to why they should not be imprisoned until they purge themselves of the contempt and restore the court's authority.