The bank alleges that the individuals defied a court order and removed a court-appointed receiver-manager from WEMPCO’s Ogun State steel plant.

United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc has asked the Federal High Court in Lagos to commit nine individuals linked to Western Metal Products Company (WEMPCO) to prison over alleged disobedience of a court order in a dispute involving ₦61.45 billion.

The bank’s application accuses the individuals of allegedly forcing a court-appointed receiver-manager out of WEMPCO’s steel factory in the Magboro-Ibafo area of Ogun State. UBA is seeking their imprisonment until they comply with the court’s directives.

According to reports published by Leadership and TheCable on October 28, 2026, the contempt proceedings relate to an order issued on April 2, 2026, by Justice Akintayo Aluko of the Federal High Court, Lagos, concerning funds and assets linked to WEMPCO and other defendants.

The order reportedly directed the preservation of funds totalling up to ₦61,445,695,993.76 across 27 banks and financial technology platforms. It also appointed Romeo Ese Michael as receiver-manager over specified assets not already pledged under a 2019 credit agreement.

UBA Alleges Forced Removal of Receiver

In its supporting affidavit, UBA alleged that court bailiffs had handed over WEMPCO’s Magboro-Ibafo plant to the appointed receiver-manager before the respondents allegedly mobilised individuals to remove him.

The bank further alleged that locks installed by the receiver were broken, his staff were threatened with serious injury, and the individuals continued operating the business despite the subsisting court order.

UBA maintains that the alleged actions have obstructed its efforts to enforce the court’s directives and recover the disputed debt.

The allegations remain subject to judicial determination. The request for imprisonment does not, by itself, establish that the individuals are guilty of contempt.

Nine Individuals Named in the Proceedings

The nine individuals named in the committal proceedings are:

• Lewis Shui Noor Tung
• Phillip Shui Che Tung
• Alhaji M.A. Ola Yusuf
• Tung Lawrence Blake
• Alli Aare Hadji Tokunbo
• Paul Shui Po Tung
• Robert Tung
• C.L. Ip
• Taiwo Alli

The court proceedings seek to require the respondents to explain why they should not be committed to prison for alleged disobedience of its order.

The court had earlier granted UBA’s application for substituted service of Form 49, a procedural notice requiring alleged contemnors to show cause why a committal order should not be made against them.

WEMPCO and UBA Had Discussed Possible Settlement

Court documents cited in media reports indicate that the parties previously explored the possibility of resolving the dispute through negotiations.

On June 22, 2026, WEMPCO’s lawyers reportedly approached UBA to request an urgent meeting and proposed an interim standstill, a joint reconciliation of accounts and a structured repayment arrangement.

UBA’s legal representative subsequently agreed to meet with the company’s representatives. A meeting reportedly took place at the bank’s Marina headquarters in Lagos on June 26.

The parties allegedly agreed to conduct a joint inspection of the Magboro facility on July 2. However, according to UBA’s affidavit, WEMPCO’s representatives did not attend the planned inspection, and the bank said subsequent communication had broken down.

These details form part of the bank’s account of the dispute and should not be treated as independent findings by the court.

What the Dispute Means for WEMPCO’s Assets

The case highlights the legal and financial consequences that can arise when creditors seek to enforce debt-recovery measures against companies and their assets.

A receiver-manager may be appointed under a court order to take control of specified assets, preserve their value or manage them in accordance with the order. The precise powers depend on the terms of the appointment and applicable law.

The dispute also raises questions about compliance with court orders, the protection of creditors’ interests and the process for resolving contested claims over corporate assets.

The outcome of the contempt proceedings could determine whether the nine individuals face committal orders and influence the next steps in UBA’s recovery efforts. However, the court must consider the allegations and the respondents’ opportunity to answer them before making a final determination.

Note: The ₦61.45 billion dispute between UBA and WEMPCO has escalated from debt recovery and asset preservation to contempt proceedings against nine individuals. The central issues now include compliance with the court’s orders, control of the Ogun State factory and the legal steps available to recover the disputed funds.

Source: Leadership Newspaper - Original Report | TheCable - Additional Reporting

Editorial note: The allegations in this report are attributed to UBA and the cited reports. The court’s final determination should be reported when available.