A protracted legal battle has erupted between Mikap Nigeria Limited and Keystone Bank Nigeria Plc over an alleged N2 billion Paddy Aggregation Loan approved by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).
Mikap had approached the Federal High Court in Makurdi in March 2024, accusing Keystone Bank of breaching contractual terms tied to the CBN facility. The company is claiming N31 billion in special and general damages.
According to court filings, the loan was approved by the CBN in April 2019 following Mikap’s application through Keystone Bank.
The company alleges that although the N2 billion was credited to its account, the bank subsequently withdrew the entire sum without its consent three days later.
Mikap maintains that the facility was designated solely for the purchase of paddy for rice production and that any variation required prior CBN approval.
The Makurdi suit, marked MHC/119/2024, has reached an advanced stage, with several exhibits and witness testimonies already presented.
The matter was adjourned to February 23, 2026, for Keystone Bank to open its defence.
However, Keystone Bank has now filed a separate suit at the Federal High Court in Lagos seeking to place Mikap under receivership over an alleged debt.
In reaction, Mikap filed a Motion for Stay of Action and a Notice of Preliminary Objection, contending that the Lagos suit is an abuse of court process since the earlier action in Makurdi remains pending.
The company is urging the court to compel the bank to defend itself in the Makurdi proceedings.
In a related development, the Federal High Court in Makurdi, in Suit No. FHC/CS/M/117/2025, restrained Keystone Bank from interfering with the bank accounts of Mikap’s directors.
Legal observers note that the dispute now raises jurisdictional questions, particularly as Mikap operates from Makurdi, Benue State.
Mikap further asserts that it has maintained a strong repayment history with other financial institutions, including Access Bank and the Bank of Industry, since it began operations in 2011.
The case is expected to continue in both jurisdictions as the courts determine the validity of the competing claims.
Ends
