$40m Debt Dispute Triggers Cross-Border Asset Enforcement Against Oil Executive

 A cross-border debt dispute involving approximately $40 million has escalated into enforcement proceedings against properties and other assets linked to Abdulrahman Musa Bashar, chairman of Rahamaniyya Group of Companies, following a series of court judgments and payment defaults.

 The dispute arose from petroleum-product transactions between Petrichor Energy FZCO, formerly known as CE Energy DMCC, and Ultimate Oil & Gas FZCO involving supplies of gasoil and Jet A1 aviation fuel. Court documents indicate that the parties initially conducted several spot transactions before entering a term contract in April 2023. 

 According to the court record, Ultimate Oil & Gas subsequently failed to meet certain payment obligations. In January 2024, the parties entered into a restructuring agreement, under which Bashar provided a personal guarantee and nine undated cheques as security for the company’s obligations.

 The payment arrangement later broke down, with Petrichor alleging further defaults. Ultimate disputed the alleged breach. Seven of the cheques were subsequently presented but returned unpaid because of what was described in the court documents as irregular signatures. 

 Petrichor subsequently obtained summary judgments in England against Ultimate and Bashar. Further payment arrangements were reached, but the court found that multiple instalments were not paid as agreed.

 In March 2026, the English High Court granted a worldwide freezing order covering assets in Nigeria, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates and France. The order followed concerns about the potential dissipation of assets. 

 Nigeria’s Federal High Court in Lagos later registered the English judgment for enforcement and issued writs of attachment and sale.

 From a compliance perspective, the case highlights the importance of counterparty due diligence, payment-risk controls, enforceable guarantees, asset tracing and cross-border judgment enforcement in commodity trading.

 It also demonstrates how a commercial payment dispute can evolve into a complex recovery exercise spanning multiple jurisdictions, corporate entities and asset classes.