0
0
Court Showdown Looms as Mikap, Keystone Bank Trade Claims Over N2bn Facility
The dispute between Mikap Nigeria Limited and Keystone Bank Nigeria Plc has intensified following conflicting claims over a N2 billion loan facility approved by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).
Mikap Nigeria Limited instituted legal proceedings in March 2024 at the Federal High Court, Makurdi, accusing Keystone Bank of breaching the terms of a Paddy Aggregation Loan approved in April 2019.
The company is seeking N31 billion in damages, alleging that the bank withdrew the loan sum from its account without consent shortly after disbursement.
Mikap argues that the loan was strictly earmarked for paddy procurement to support rice production and that no alteration of purpose could be made without CBN approval.
The Makurdi case, marked MHC/119/2024, has progressed to the defence stage, with numerous documentary exhibits already admitted in evidence. The court adjourned the matter to February 23, 2026.
In a dramatic turn, Keystone Bank filed a fresh suit before the Federal High Court in Lagos on January 5, 2026, seeking to place Mikap Nigeria Limited under receivership over what it claims is an outstanding debt.
Mikap has challenged the Lagos proceedings, filing preliminary objections and seeking a stay of action, arguing that the earlier Makurdi case should take precedence.
Additionally, a separate order from the Federal High Court in Makurdi in Suit No. FHC/CS/M/117/2025 restrained Keystone Bank from tampering with the accounts of the company’s directors.
The legal confrontation has sparked debate among practitioners over jurisdictional propriety and the implications of parallel litigation.
Mikap Nigeria Limited maintains that it is not in default and highlights its credit history with institutions such as Access Bank and the Bank of Industry, noting that it has serviced previous loans since commencing operations in 2011.
As proceedings continue in Makurdi and Lagos, attention is now focused on how the courts will resolve the procedural and substantive issues arising from the dispute.
About The Author
