Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Kunle Ogunba is facing scrutiny over apparent contradictions in his recent media publications and court filings, after claiming that his alleged appointment as Receiver/Manager over power companies has been affirmed by the Courts while simultaneously appealing a restraining order that bars him from acting in that capacity.
Court documents and investigations reveal that Ogunba presented his receivership as “court-approved” in paid newspaper adverts, even as his law firm filed an appeal challenging the very same court ruling.
According to Court records, Justice Akintayo Aluko of the Federal High Court delivered a ruling on August 5, 2025, restraining the lenders seeking to take over Kepco Energy Resource Nigeria Limited and affiliates. The ruling restrained Ogunba whom the Banks had appointed as Receiver/Manager from “taking any adverse steps” against the power companies. In his ruling, Justice Aluko noted Ogunba’s receivership was “a subject of litigation,” not a settled fact.
Ogunba, through paid advertisements in ThisDay and Punch Newspapers stated that: “The appointment of a receiver/manager has been concluded thus necessitating the Public caveats,” essentially, presenting the receivership as a fait accompli with judicial approval.
However, it was reliably gathered from top court sources that on August 7, 2025, a day after Ogunba’s advertorials were published, his law firm filed a Notice of Appeal with 10 Grounds of appeal. The appeal has since been obtained by this newspaper. The Grounds of Ogunba’s appeal substantially challenge Justice Aluko’s Orders, which Ogunba had alleged approved of his Receivership.
The filing further argues the receivership was so “statutory” that restraining it “occasioned a miscarriage of justice.” According to legal experts, this directly contradicts his newspaper adverts which indicated that the court had approved the appointment.
Activities in the next few days would reveal the next steps Ogunba intends to take under the circumstances and the current difficulty in reconciling his “concluded receivership status” with the current appeal filed by his firm.
In general, the appeal raises a contradiction regarding Ogunba’s insistence that his receivership is “statutory” and already approved by the Court. Legal experts say this amounts to “tacitly admitting that they are disputed”.
Download
Download
Download.
